Which again wasn’t the point, as I’m sure you know. The issue was whether good motivations should be an excuse. I’d guess that some Iranians thought they are serving their country against serious threats by how they treated the protesters–and if they didn’t, there are others who have thought so.

The question is whether one’s subjective motive should be an excusing factor. I say no. If you say yes, then when can anyone be held accountable for torture as long as they thought what they were doing was necessary? If it’s “sometimes,” who makes the call as to whether the motive is a legitimate one or not? Are you going to do the dreaded second-guessing of those actually on the scene?

I think you really are avoiding the question. I’ll take your historical point. But you said motivations should count. Would saving souls be a justification for those actions? Would those people then be excused?

“The EITs carried out by the CIA were neither systematic nor politically motivated, and they were tightly focused on a handful of individuals who through both deed and avowed conviction presented a clear — and yes plausible — threat to many people. Can you grasp the distinction?”

I think some horrible things can be performed by people with subjective good intentions. I don’t think that concept should be so hard to grasp.

“we have you fatuously describing one scenario in which you’d nobly sacrifice a love one to uphold the letter of the law, and another in which you’d grandly accept punishment for breaking a law, regardless of the prevailing circumstances.”

I think your description of my position is what is fatuous, and obviously so. What I said was that I don’t think I would break the law, but IF I DID, then I would expect to be held accountable–and that anyone who breaks the law should have a similar expectation. (Also, there are other motivations to refuse to engage in torture other than not breaking the law, such as preserving one’s own worth as a human being.)

“Or are there really automatons out there who would so gladly and unquestioningly submit to anything bearing the imprimatur of government?”

That’s precisely what some of think the “EIT” justifiers are doing: since those techniques have the imprimatur of government (or at least the unilateral declaration of the executive branch), they must be OK. And that’s precisely the problem.

Why not believe him? Why take the risk of not believing him? Couldn’t lives be at stake?

“Your complete hypothetical was: “what if someone demanded that we use EITs on your family because we thought they might have some useful information?” I answered it. You’re just moving the goal posts.”

If my hypo was incomplete, the right thing to do would be to make it more difficult to answer, not easier. That’s what I do with other people’s hypotheticals.

“But you have continually said there should be “clear rules” governing interrogation techniques, and you used to claim there were such “clear rules” under which the EITs were clearly illegal, until you were unable to identify any. So now you are literally advocating that interrogators be tried for torture based on some vague standard of reasonableness.”

Rules should be made as clear as possible. But there is obviously no way to create a rule for every single circumstance. Still, that does not prevent our justice system from working, and we don’t throw out a “reasonableness” standard as vague when applied to circumstances that surround the rules we put in place. (That’s how professional malpractice suits work all the time: was their behavior reasonable, regardless of the result.)

Nor has anyone else proposed an alternative system. If you’ve got one, go ahead.

“My whole point was that you are wrong, there aren’t such clear standards.”

Again, what’s your alternative, other than “anything goes because we can’t second guess these people”? If you object to my proposal, I think you have some obligation to come up with something better.

“Definitive proof is impossible in this context, dsimon. You can call it post hoc fallacy all you want, but this is about as much proof as is possible — at least with redactions. There is obviously no proof you would accept. He provided more information after waterboard than before.”

Again, even the IG report and Cheney himself don’t draw the conclusion that you want to make. As I wrote in another thread, there are many ongoing activities that were ongoing that could explain “more information.” It seems that information wasn’t given up immediately upon waterboarding–otherwise why continue doing it over 100 times? But if it was continued waterboarding that is a possible explanation, than there was also continuing confinement under what were certainly uncomfortable circumstances. And there was continuing interrogation that did not involve EITs. So I don’t see the rationale to conclude that it was the continuation of waterboardings rather than the continuation of numerous other activities that produced the information. Since the other explanations are quite plausible, why privilege one over the other–unless it’s a bias for the one preferred explanation all along to “prove” a predetermined point?

“A lot more than “one line” has been cited supporting the effectiveness of EI.”

The waterboarding example seems to be the only one under discussion here, and, as I pointed out, it’s a weak inference that even Cheney refused to make in his own statement. So it seems to me that Cheney’s defenders here have to argue that they know what the memos showed more than Cheney does, the person who has the most at stake in drawing a strong inference.

“You want Cheney to be a liar, and you are blind to contradictory evidence.”

I’m not saying he’s a liar (which requires intent), only that he’s often wrong. I’m also saying (1) he chooses his words carefully, and (2) he is not a reliable source, even regarding his recollection of things he’s said in the past. I mean, even I remembered Cheney making this statement which he later said he never said. http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-june-21-2004/moment-of-zen—pretty-well-confirmed

“Or are seriously arguing that there is a presumption that the career staff DOJ investigations of these cases are invalid, and that is justifies or even requires new investigations?”

I’m saying that it should be very hard to vouch for the legitimacy of an investigation that cleared people where people involved clearly went beyond the already questionable authority granted to them. Or do you think that didn’t happen? It would be good to see the investigation reports themselves, if we could, so we’d have something more to discuss (as we did when the Yoo-Bybee memos came out). But I can say the investigation may have been politicized, you can say the new investigation is politicized, and neither of us really has any goods on the other without more information (though, given the state of the Justice Department under Bush, I think I have the stronger argument, though I’m sure you disagree).

At this point I can only marvel at your willful obtuseness. As with the wartime rape scenario, the Spanish Inquisition analogy you insist on invoking is patently ludicrous. To begin with, the Inquisition was not about “saving souls;” it was about using religious dogma in the pursuit of political persecution. Any college undergraduate worth his salt can tell you that. The EITs carried out by the CIA were neither systematic nor politically motivated, and they were tightly focused on a handful of individuals who through both deed and avowed conviction presented a clear — and yes plausible — threat to many people. Can you grasp the distinction?

As has been noted above, this whole exercise is about striking a sanctimonious pose. Thus we have you fatuously describing one scenario in which you’d nobly sacrifice a love one to uphold the letter of the law, and another in which you’d grandly accept punishment for breaking a law, regardless of the prevailing circumstances.

I have to believe you’re being disingenuous. Or are there really automatons out there who would so gladly and unquestioningly submit to anything bearing the imprimatur of government?

And yes, most people who torture have “bad” motivations.

2. Your complete hypothetical was: “what if someone demanded that we use EITs on your family because we thought they might have some useful information?” I answered it. You’re just moving the goal posts.

3. Do you think law enforcement really believes Tiller’s killer’s threat of “more attacks”? Do we actually have some information that he is part of a terrorist organization planning more killings, like we did with KSM et al? Do they have cells and operational plans about which we have other intelligence? Do you know all the kinds of things and have all the relevant considerations we did with those terrorists? Sure, then waterboad him. I know, you wouldn’t. You would expect those about to be murdered to understand their lives just had to be sacrificed.

4. You skewered a straw man regarding jury trials of reasonableness, because you quoted only the first part of what I said and didn’t address the actual point. I am quite aware of you the legal process works. Juries are instructed about “reasonableness” in some contexts. But you have continually said there should be “clear rules” governing interrogation techniques, and you used to claim there were such “clear rules” under which the EITs were clearly illegal, until you were unable to identify any. So now you are literally advocating that interrogators be tried for torture based on some vague standard of reasonableness. Sorry, but that is absurd, and I don’t think you should hold your breath even under the Obama regime for that.

5. I don’t have a clear set of rules for what is torture. You are the one who said they are already in the law and clearly make the EITs illegal. My whole point was that you are wrong, there aren’t such clear standards. And I have no idea why you now seem to be asking what the rules should be. You can’t very well indict and try people based on what you think the rules should be or should have been.

6. From the IG report: “It is not possible to say definitively that the waterboard is the reason for Abu Zubaydah’s increased production, or if another factor, such as the length of detention, was the catalyst. Since the use of the waterboard, however, Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative, [REDACTED]” Definitive proof is impossible in this context, dsimon. You can call it post hoc fallacy all you want, but this is about as much proof as is possible — at least with redactions. There is obviously no proof you would accept. He provided more information after waterboard than before. I suspect a jury would say Cheney wins and you lose, based on that alone.

7. This statement of yours is pretty telling, and pretty incredible: “Again, you did not answer my question. I asked whether those who clearly went beyond what they were authorized to do by the Justice Department memos should be held accountable. Saying “they were investigated” is not a response, because it assumes the validity of the investigation. Or do you think it’s not clear that the actions went beyond what was authorized?”

Saying they were already investigated absolutely answered your question. Did you not get that my answer implied as well that, no, I don’t think ANOTHER investigation to serve Obama’s political desires is needed and that none should go forward? Or are seriously arguing that there is a presumption that the career staff DOJ investigations of these cases are invalid, and that is justifies or even requires new investigations? Because you say and the rest of the hate-Bush crowd says so, I guess. Look, your argument is ridiculous. Not much more to say about it. I think you just didn’t know they had already been investigated, and now you can’t back down, because as sbj says you are an accomplished resister.

8. What in the world are you talking about in this statement: “Also, If these memos contain new allegations of abuse, we have treaty obligations that clearly require an investigation. So yes, there are other possible reasons other than politics.” These old memos would contain new allegations how? All reports I’ve seen acknowledged that Holder initiated investigations of exactly the same allegations and files that were previously investigated.

9. The rest of your response, concerning the substance of the memos and Cheney’s statements, I won’t bother to address yet again. A lot more than “one line” has been cited supporting the effectiveness of EI. You want Cheney to be a liar, and you are blind to contradictory evidence. You’ve become like that Monte Python knight who called his own dismemberment a flesh wound.

No, but it does need to be plausible. And I listed a litany of improbable conditions that would have to be met to make it plausible. Hence, not very plausible at all.

Moreover, one would think that with so many critics of the scenario, its supporters would be able to come up with a single instance, non-classified if you must, of its occurrence.

“The idea that one would need to satisfy a set of inherently unrealistic preconditions before doing anything the least bit unpalatable in a time of war is childishly naive.”

First, I don’t believe I took that position. Second, planning for every worst-case scenario leads to bad policy because the allowances tend to swallow up all the other circumstances. If one thinks it’s necessary to break the law in an extreme case, then one should be ready to do so (I believe Senator Durbin has taken this position, saying the law should apply but he’d be willing to break it in an extreme case).

“Your position seems to be that one must evince complete and unquestioning fealty to laws regardless of the situation. I would argue that laws are neither sacrosanct nor immutable. As others have pointed out, context and motivation should be considered when assessing the actions of others.”

I argue that if you think are actions are worth breaking the law for, then you should expect to be held accountable under the law. I can imagine situations where I would break the law; I just wouldn’t expect an allowance for doing so. Otherwise, what law is left?

As for motivation, I have little doubt that those who tortured during the Spanish Inquisition thought they were doing so for great reasons: saving souls. But I don’t think that excuses what they did. Indeed, I don’t think their motivations even count. Sometimes people do horrible things for what they think are very good reasons. That’s why we have laws: so that certain actions are not left to the discretion of particular individuals.

Really, do we think that most of those who cross the line into torture have bad motivations? They all have reasons. It may seem tragic that some people are held accountable even when they have good motives. But a reason is not an excuse.

For More on the matter: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/A_Man_for_All_Seasons

Yes we do. We did n NOT know whether those waterboarded definitely had vital information that needed to be elicited quickly and could not have been elicited otherwise. Labeling them “high level operatives” doesn’t tell us that they have the information we’re looking for.

And I never assumed in my hypo that we had “innocent Americans” with a “vague suspicion” of having information. First, how do we know if they’re innocent ahead of time? (That’s one of the whole problems with the detention regime, as even administration and elected officials call those held in Guantanamo “terrorists” and “the worst of the worst,” even as we found many of them were not and subsequently released them.) Nor did I articulate the basis of the suspicion. We can make it more than “vague,” if you like. We can make it “probable but not definite.” The point of a hypo isn’t to make it as easy as possible to fit an answer someone would like to provide.

So answer it. Should the person who killed the Kansas abortion provider be waterboarded? After all, we know as surely as we can before a trial that he’s a killer, and he said himself that there would be more attacks. Why not make sure this terrorist isn’t a part of a larger group planning another killing? What more would you need? (We can wait until after he’s found guilty, if that makes the process easier.)

“It is a basic principle of criminal law that the rules have to be clearly defined in advance, not after the fact. You say a jury should decide what was reasonable.”

And that happens all the time. For instance, a jury decides whether there is a valid self-defense claim. That claim rests on a factual determination of whether a the defendant has a reasonable belief that he is in danger. A judge provides guidance through jury instructions as to what “reasonable” means. Even though it’s obviously impossible to give rules for every contingency, somehow our legal system seems to arrive at a result. Our legal system is a combination of rules and process.

“I don’t think interrogation conduct should all just be left to subjective judgment, and I never suggested such a ridiculous thing.”

Perhaps, but you haven’t given me anything else to go on because you still have not stated any alternative. What would you suggest? I can’t have a discussion regarding your point of view if you don’t put something forward.

“I completely buried your point. Go read it if you care to. The IG’s report itself explicitly states that AZ became cooperative and provided information only after waterboarding.”

Once again, the report doesn’t say when the information was elicited, or whether waterboarding was the cause, or whether something else might have been. You want to rely on the report, but you’re making inferences that the report itself–and Cheney himself–refuses to make. But If you want to buy into “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy, go right ahead.

“These cases were ALL previously investigated by career DOJ lawyers. Now Holder wants to pursue them AGAIN. The only possible reason is politics. So I ask YOU again, a question you never answered. How many times do you want them investigated? Until it goes the way you want?”

Again, you did not answer my question. I asked whether those who clearly went beyond what they were authorized to do by the Justice Department memos should be held accountable. Saying “they were investigated” is not a response, because it assumes the validity of the investigation. Or do you think it’s not clear that the actions went beyond what was authorized?

And I could ask the same question of you: do you want to stick with the original investigation because it came out the way you wanted it? When it comes to politization, it’s pretty clear that Gonzales and the White House were closely tied. I understand your suspicions about Holder, but it sure seems to me that Obama would like this whole thing to go away; it doesn’t help Obama to have the CIA angry at him. Also, If these memos contain new allegations of abuse, we have treaty obligations that clearly require an investigation. So yes, there are other possible reasons other than politics.

“As to what Cheney said, what Sargent has charged in these posts is that Cheney made a false statement about the effectiveness of EIT as reflected in CIA memos, that he lied about it. (Funny how he would lie about their content while publicly asking for their disclosure.) I’ve asked that he or someone who defends him produce the exact statement with a source. I still haven’t seen it.”

Let’s work backwards from the memos. If the memos back up whatever claim Cheney actually made, then what he said was so trivial that we shouldn’t be spending so much time on it. The memos don’t say much if anything about the efficacy of EITs. Cheney’s defenders point to a single line in the memo to create a timeline but cannot attribute cause–which even Cheney has not done.

Cheney’s own statement doesn’t say the EITs elicited the information. I’ll post it again: “The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda.” http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977787488 Notably, he doesn’t claim that the EITs actually elicited the information. If he thought the documents said that, why wouldn’t he himself had said so?

And if he’s not making that claim but some far lesser one, then whatever his claim was wasn’t terribly important to begin with, and we’ve all been wasting our time discussing it.

As to what Cheney said, what Sargent has charged in these posts is that Cheney made a false statement about the effectiveness of EIT as reflected in CIA memos, that he lied about it. (Funny how he would lie about their content while publicly asking for their disclosure.) I’ve asked that he or someone who defends him produce the exact statement with a source. I still haven’t seen it.

Dsimon, I didn’t answer your hypothetical because it is completely and utterly divorced from reality and from my position. The three detainees who were waterboarded were NOT just some innocent Americans whom someone had a vague suspicion just “may have” some information. Do we need to go over that? They were three high level AQ operatives, including the planner of 9/11. We KNEW these things about them. So, no, under your pointless hypothetical, we shouldn’t just waterboard everyone on suspicion of anything. And remember, the accusation at issue is that Cheney lied when he said the memos support his position that EIT’s provided valuable information (assuming Sargent will ever produce the actual statement he says was false).

I am honestly dumbfounded that you admit you probably would not waterboard a known terrorist murderer even if the situation fit the archetypical “ticking bomb” scenario and your own family’s lives were at stake. I just don’t know how to respond to that. I can tip my hat to your consistency, but I would have no hesitation in that situation, nor to I think 90% of people would, even those in the anti-Cheney camp. It tells me a lot about how impossible it would ever be for us to find common ground. I wouldn’t expect my children to “understand” that I was going to let them be murdered rather than make a terrorist feel like he was drowning.

You said: “I think you are reinterpreting what Cheney actually said. I’m not smearing him; I’m trying to hold him to his own standard. Not my fault if he keeps making statements that are not remotely provable.”

I think you are ad libbing and moving the ball again. You haven’t cited any “standard” of Cheney’s to which you are holding him. Elsewhere you said his untrue statement was that the EIT-detainees provide the bulk of the information. Now you claim unspecified statements he “keeps making” that aren’t provable. So that is the standard, Cheney isn’t telling the truth if his statements can’t be proved? You think you are really playing it straight here? I don’t.

Your answers to me about the lack of any clear “rules” are revealing. You admit that you can’t cite any clear legal rules governing these techniques, but think they are somewhere in our statutes or treaties. Well, they aren’t. You say you have invoked a “process” — the trial — for determining guilt or innocense. So what? A process isn’t a set of clear rules. The availability of a trial in the absence of any clear rules isn’t much of a trial, is it? You don’t seem to understand the difference between saying there should be clear rules and there are clear rules. It is a basic principle of criminal law that the rules have to be clearly defined in advance, not after the fact. You say a jury should decide what was reasonable. Really, you think a letting a jury decide guilt or innocense in the absence of clear rules is sufficient, because it is a process? I just think you are lost in confusion because you are committed to the position that Bush and Cheney did something wrong, and facts don’t really matter.

In answer to your question, I don’t think interrogation conduct should all just be left to subjective judgment, and I never suggested such a ridiculous thing. It is you and your compatriots who claim that there were clear legal rules identifying EITs as illegal torture. But there just weren’t, and now you have admitted you can’t cite those rules. By the way, you invoke the Geneva Convention. Were you aware that Holder is on record as saying that it didn’t apply to these detainees? Yet is is claimed here that Bush and Cheney are war criminals for taking the same position.

“To refute me, you quote my reliance on FBI testimony. I don’t see how that’s relevant to what Cheney says the memos would show, or the actual content of the memos.”

No, I quoted you to refute your claim that I misstated your and Sargent’s position, which you said was solely that the CIA memos don’t say what Cheney says, and nothing more, and your repeated claims that you don’t know what it means to ask whether EITs “worked.” And refute you it did. Anyone who wants to verify can scroll up the the post.

You raise Zubuyduh again and ask what logic there could have been to waterboarding him 83 times. You obviously didn’t read my prior response carefully, where I completely buried your point. Go read it if you care to. The IG’s report itself explicitly states that AZ became cooperative and provided information only after waterboarding. You have no idea how many times it took before he started to cooperate or provided key information, yet you apparently are able to conclude that it couldn’t have been justified to keep waterboarding him. In fact, you are so certain that you can conclude it was illegal and should be prosecuted even though you can’t even cite an applicable statute. No, I don’t think we want to be following your prescriptions in this country.

Lastly, you ask me again repeatedly about AZ and instances where interrogators went beyond authorized methods and whether I don’t think they should be investigated. Again, you obviously didn’t read my prior response. These cases were ALL previously investigated by career DOJ lawyers. Now Holder wants to pursue them AGAIN. The only possible reason is politics. So I ask YOU again, a question you never answered. How many times do you want them investigated? Until it goes the way you want?

On the issue of the rape analogy, I obviously agree with Jasper that it simply doesn’t fit. I understood Consumatopia’s general point that all hypotheticals can be problematic, but I do believe these three instances of waterboarding were quite close to a true “ticking bomb” scenario, while the “rape this person or we’ll kill your children” hypothetical is just far-fetched and leads to no useful moral reasoning. But I at least think Consumatopia was thinking about the issues in an appropriate way, which has to confront moral complexity and potential conflicts.

Scott C, you nailed it.

The first sentence is nothing more than an expression solipsism. Unless you’re an intelligence operative with a senior-level security clearance or have access to the entirety of the nation’s — or indeed the world’s — classified intelligence archive, your grasp of the relevant historical record matters little. Moreover, a scenario needn’t have a historical precedent to be plausible.

The second sentence I’ve cited (actually the third in your original paragraph) is more interesting, in that it reveals your fundamental ignorance of the nature of espionage. One seldom knows much of anything with certainty in relation to the intentions of allies and adversaries alike. Such is and has always been the defining dynamic of intelligence gathering. The idea that one would need to satisfy a set of inherently unrealistic preconditions before doing anything the least bit unpalatable in a time of war is childishly naive.

Your position seems to be that one must evince complete and unquestioning fealty to laws regardless of the situation. I would argue that laws are neither sacrosanct nor immutable. As others have pointed out, context and motivation should be considered when assessing the actions of others.

You are correct that strictly speaking Cheney’s quoted statement does not specifically state that EIT’s were responsible for eliciting information. But my understanding is that Cheney has confirmed that he was not being Clintonesque (ie not trying to draw a lawyerly distinction), so I understand him to be saying precisely that. Besides, arguing that it is not so because even Cheney doesn’t claim it is so is nothing more than an appeal to authority. It is not a rational argument.

You are also correct that a timeline does not necessarily establish cause and effect. Of course from a strictly logical standpoint, it has not, and indeed short of a declaration by a detainee himself (and perhaps not even then) it cannot, be established as a logical certainty that it was the use of EITs that elicited the information. This is true even if, say, person X refused to talk for 60 days, and then on day 61 he was waterboarded and he suddenly began to talk. That is because, as a matter of strict logic, other causes cannot be excluded. Perhaps X’s tolerance for captivity was 60 days, and on
the 61st day he was going to talk no matter what. Perhaps for the last 30 days he was re-examing his beliefs and on the 61st day he concluded he should reveal what he knows. Perhaps just prior to being waterboarded he had a revelation. Perhaps any one of a thousand things. So it is true that, as a matter of strict logic, of course we cannot conclude that just because B followed A, A must have caused B. However, in the context of the actual example, when a detainee doesn’t speak for 60 days, and then begins to talk
on the 61st day after being waterboarded, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the EIT, whose very purpose was to elicit information that was not previously forthcoming, did in fact elicit the information.

Your analogy is not particularly apt, primarily because there is no reason to believe that the two events are connected, whereas concerning EITs and the willingness of a detainee to talk, there is a clear connection, and indeed a known causal effect. (In fact, one of the more practical criticisms of EITs is that the information elicited cannot be trusted, because a person will say anything, true or false, to get the EIT stopped. This criticism clearly accepts the causal connection between EITs and the provision of information, albeit possibly bad info).

If it were the case, in your example, that terrorist acts were being committed against the US expressly because of the use of EITs, and terrorist acts ceased subsequent to our stopping the use of EITs, then, like the above example, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that one caused the other, even though from a strictly logical point of view, it cannot be established.

As I wrote above, even Cheney’s statement doesn’t say the EITs elicited the information. I’ll post it again: “The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda.” http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977787488 Notably, he doesn’t claim that the EITs actually elicited the information. If they had, why wouldn’t he himself had said so?

So I don’t see how the documents show Cheney to be right about the use of EITs, since Cheney himself doesn’t seem to be up to making the claim.

And someone will have to explain to me how a “timeline” means cause and effect with respect to EITs. I can draw a “timeline” showing that since we stopped using disputed EITs (in around 2004, apparently), we haven’t been attacked. Does that prove my point?

It’s wholly unique to the point that no one can come up with to a single historical incident of it outside of fiction. Though dramatic, it is quite implausible. You’d have to know that something terrible is about to happen, have in custody a person who knows about it, know that the person knows about it, and know that the techniques applied will actually elicit the information necessary to stop it in time rather than a string of false statements. That’s a pretty hefty composite hypothetical.

“What if an interrogator refused to make a suspect uncomfortable in an effort to elicit information about a terrorism plot, and as a result said plot went off as planned and 5,000 people were killed and many more thousands were injured. Should the interrogator be prosecuted for complicity or incompetence?”

None of the above, since the conditions I outlined above were probably not fulfilled. It’s not the interrogator’s fault that other people set off bombs.

Moreover, if an interrogator elicits information that leads us to invade another country, resulting in thousands of deaths and billions of expended dollars, and it turns out that the information was wrong, should the interrogator be prosecuted? That’s why you can’t just rely on the ticking time bomb scenario, because it assumes we always will get good information. There are costs to getting bad information too.

Cheney originally claimed that EIT’s were an integral part of an interrogation process which resulted in the acquisition of valuable intelligence that made the country more secure from terrorist attacks. He further stated that he was specifically aware of reports that detailed the information which was gleened from the interrogation process, and he implied, although he did not specifcally state, that the reports would validate the conclusion that EIT’s were instrumental in getting the information.

Greg has claimed that the documents Cheney referred to do not in fact substantiate Cheney’s claims. Greg also seems to think that the documents do prove something, and although he never states specifically what he thinks they prove, it seems he thinks they somehow prove that Cheney was not telling the truth, or was at least wrong. Greg also condemns Cheney’s defense of the interrogators as “absurd”, partially quoting a passage which seems to suggest that, even as they were interrogating, the interrogators themselves were concerned about being in legal jeopardy as the result of, as Greg characterizes them, “his (ie Cheney’s) policies.”

Stephen Hayes, meanwhile, has claimed that the documents do substantiate Cheney’s claim. He cites several passages which seem clearly and undeniably to establish a timeline in which valuable information was provided by various detainees only after EIT’s had been employed. However, the passages he cites come from the Inspector General’s report and not the actual CIA reports to which Cheney was apparently originally referring. Hayes further charges that Greg has artfully used ellipses to alter the context of the interrogators’ concerns. Hayes quotes the passages in full, showing that that at least one of the concerned interrogators actually supported the now questioned policies (”it had to be done”) despite any future repercussions, and that one of their fears was the lack of support of just the type Cheney is now giving them, and which Greg would have Cheney deny them. Lastly, Hayes has taken Greg to task for characterizing the interrogation policies as “Bush/Cheney torture policies” when, in fact, the EIT’s were developed by intelligence officers themselves.

In response to Hayes’ rebuttal, Greg first points out that Hayes has only cited the IG report and not the 2 CIA reports that Cheney originally spoke of. This is a fair enough point, although its force as an argument is weak since, if Cheney was correct about his primary claim (EIT’s were an integral and necessary component of gathering valuable intel), but wrong about the documents that substantiated the claim (the IG report rather than the CIA memos), Cheney was merely wrong about an insignificant detail. With regard to the passages in the IG report that seem to substantiate Cheney’s claim, all Greg does is link to 3 sources which he claims agree with Greg, and which he suggests have more “credibility” than Hayes. This is no argument at all, and is in fact a logical fallacy, the appeal to authority.

With regard to the charge of artfully using ellipses to alter the context of the interrogators’ concerns and elinimate relevant information, Greg makes no defense whatsoever. Nor does he defend himself against the charge that he has inaccurately labelled EIT’s as “Bush/Cheney” policies.

So I score it thus:

1) Cheney’s claim about the value of information gathered as a result of EIT’s seems clearly substantiated by the IG’s report, albeit not yet by the (severely redacted) CIA reports. Greg has been unable to rebut Hayes’ points about the IG report with any reasoned argument, employing only an appeal to authority.

2) Greg’s imputation (although not explicit declaration) that Cheney has been proved wrong is not substantiated by anything.

3) Hayes’ demonstration that Greg used ellispes to eliminate relevant information from and alter the tone of the quoted passages regarding concerns of the interrogators remains unrebutted.

4) Hayes’ suggestion that Greg’s description of EIT’s as “Bush/Cheney torture policies” is deceptive also remains unrebutted.

So far I would have to say that Greg is getting the worst of this dispute. To the extent that Greg has been right about anything, it has been only on an insignificant detail.