That whole McCain-Rice thing? Er, well, even if the parties involved wanted it to happen (and she has denied any such thing), this probably wouldn’t help:
In dozens of top-secret talks and meetings in the White House, the most
senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific
details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by
the Central Intelligence Agency, sources tell ABC News. …The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation
techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the
interrogation sessions were almost choreographed — down to the number
of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic. …At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney,
former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA
Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.As the national security adviser, Rice chaired the meetings,
which took place in the White House Situation Room and were typically
attended by most of the principals or their deputies. …[After the leak of the 2002 "torture memo,"] CIA officials … returned to the Principals Committee for
approval to continue using certain "enhanced interrogation techniques."Then-National Security Advisor Rice, sources said, was
decisive. Despite growing policy concerns — shared by Powell — that
the program was harming the image of the United States abroad, sources
say she did not back down, telling the CIA: "This is your baby. Go do
it."
Of course, the officials involved would dispute my headline, as they regard these "enhanced interrogation techniques" as "not torture." Duly noted.
|
Categories: Election 2008, Terrorism & Homeland Security
|
April 10th, 2008 at 10:29:33 am
Talk about a smoking gun being a mushroom cloud.
I heard about this on the radio this morning. Apparently the only person who raised concerns was John Ashcroft. The guy is a douchebag, but he at least has some sense of right and wrong.
April 10th, 2008 at 11:20:54 am
AP: “On heels of success of ‘diplomatic surge’ Obama urges ‘enhanced listening techniques’ as means of restoring America’s image and intelligence links.”
Other news: “Puppy kisses baby chick. Butterfly sneezes.”
April 10th, 2008 at 11:43:12 am
The official line on this has always been a bit odd. It basically amounts to, “Of course we don’t torture… but if we did that would totally be OK too.” Credit where it’s due - McCain is pretty solid on this issue, recent waffles notwithstanding. He’s in a tight spot politically, what with half his party - including at least on Supreme Court justice - drooling over Jack Bauer.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:47:42 pm
If pressed on the subject, Condi could explain the Administration’s position with alacrity and poise - and then could pivot to distinguish her own personal views from Bush, the DOD and DOJ, even if drawing the distinction required some surgical rhetoric.
She would not detract from or undermine McCain’s anti-terror stance - especially if he’s at the top of the ticket.
See this interview for an example of Condi’s style. I heart her. http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080328/FOREIGN/746301768/1003
April 10th, 2008 at 1:09:44 pm
OMG! Rice and other top gov’t officials discussed — and (gasp!) approved — subjecting top al Qaeda members to being slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or . . . waterboarded!
I, for one, am absolutely outraged that the U.S. gov’t has waterboarded as many as three detainees (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, architect of the 9/11 attacks; Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, architect of the USS Cole attack; and Abu Zubaydah, head of al Qaeda’s terrorist camps and recruitment) for a grand total of less than five minutes. Dictatorship, here we come . . .
April 10th, 2008 at 3:53:13 pm
*yawn*
April 10th, 2008 at 4:52:56 pm
Talk about a smoking gun being a mushroom cloud
Huh?? You’re serious??
Not sure when or where, but this blog has taken a decidely strong left turn.
April 10th, 2008 at 4:54:14 pm
JO, in fairness, Angrier and Angrier was never exactly a member of the VRWC. :)
April 10th, 2008 at 4:59:26 pm
JO - this blog has pretty much *always* D-listed to Port … (grin) …
(Yeah, I know, another extreme word for me to use)
Fortunately, the Captain (albeit a geek through and through) has a remarkably balanced helm …
(Me, I tend to list more towards Madeira)
April 10th, 2008 at 5:52:38 pm
for a grand total of less than five minutes. Dictatorship, here we come . . .
Yes because clearly we should violate ethical standards so long as there is no immediate percieved instance of extreme bad outcome. We should engage in activities that violate basic human rights despite evidence that it actually yields useable results and in fact expert testimony points out that it will infact yield useless results.
I assume of course that those of you who support torture are totally willing to accept torture of our own soldiers and citizens abroad who are captured and accused of (but not convicted of) crimes against another nation, right?
April 10th, 2008 at 8:01:00 pm
David - actually, given your relative responses to folk having their head sawn off in a non-staged video versus Khalid Sheikh Mohammed having to try to hold his breath for a few minutes, you seem to be one of the very people you describe - “totally willing to accept torture of our own soldiers and citizens abroad who are captured and accused of (but not convicted of) crimes against another nation, right?” …
Of course, most of the now-headless weren’t even soldiers, they were actually civilians of one kind or another - perhaps that is what made it OK to you ?
Please try to get and then retain some perspective …
As long as the military on *our* side has accumulated more minutes of being waterboarded by our folk than our opponents have accumulated minutes of being waterboarded by our folk, then I, for one, can still sleep well at night without visions of faux-outrage fairies dancing in my head …
Have you asked yourself how much the other side - the munkar Al Qaeda - have put their own personnel through what they consider to be apparently acceptable behaviour ? Though, we do have to admit, one you saw someone’s head off with a dull blade, they’re no longer much use as jihad warriors, don’t you think ?
Perhaps that why our side is winning this expensive conflict ? Because our Seals and Special Forces are stronger as a result of experiencing such “torture” ?
One of these years, before anyone importnat to you dies as a result of your supporting Pelosi and Reid and Murtha and Clinton and Obama, I hope that you finally manage to realise that our enemies in this war don’t adhere to even the basics of the Geneva Conventions …
April 10th, 2008 at 8:40:09 pm
Alasdair, perspective simply doesn’t exist on the left, which is precisely why we have to entertain these tired, lame arguments about the U.S. torturing people over and over again.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:46:48 pm
Alasdair, what the hell are you talking about. When have i ever implied that cutting peoples heads of is supposedly ok? You are a pompous ass, plain and simple.
People important to me are more likely to die from alot of things that Republicans don’t seem to care about, terrorism is not likely to be one of them. And even if people close to me DO die from terrorism, torturing people for bad information is not going to prevent that. Of course like Andrew you seem to care only about the ends, not the means, you’d probably sell out your own neighbors based on rumors and speculation in the name of “freedom”, so i’m not particularly surprised by your total lack of understanding about higher moral principles, when they don’t suit your mood of course.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:58:22 pm
I assume of course that those of you who support torture are totally willing to accept torture of our own soldiers and citizens abroad who are captured and accused of (but not convicted of) crimes against another nation, right?
Total non-sequitur, since it’s obviously not up to “those of us who support torture” to accept or reject torture of our own soldiers and citizens captured abroad . . . all evidence indicates that our soldiers and citizens who are captured are tortured, beheaded, etc. whether we waterboard detainees or not.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:56:41 pm
Joe Mama, if its morally acceptable for us to do it to them, why is it not morally acceptable for them to do it to us? I don’t think it should be morally acceptable for ANYONE to use torture, especially when there are other more reliable methods of obtaining intelligence. Torture is a tool of terror, and if we claim to be better than the terrorists, we should act like it. We aren’t talking about, as some on the far right love to claim, the survival of our nation and all its citizens, we aren’t even close to that point yet despite what fear mongers would have you believe. The terrorists win when we start acting like them. Torture is unnecessary for the survival of this nation, no, its more than that, its is a step towards the path of this nation losing the freedoms and ideals it stands for, and its an absolutely unnecessary step.
April 11th, 2008 at 1:27:57 am
David - if the words I use are too hard for you, I can use more easy words …
When we start sawing off folk’s heads on one of our Reality TV shows, I’ll be out there working to get the show canceled at the very least …
I’m also 100% sure I’d happily see “them” waterboarding the folk they kidnap rather than sawing their heads off …
Can *you* at least agree with that simple concept ?
April 11th, 2008 at 3:38:33 am
So its ok because its not as terrible as what someone else is doing? Great moral standard you’ve got going there Alasdair. By your logic I can go ahead and shoot someone so long as someone else out there is shooting 2 people, and HE is ok as long as someone else is shooting 10.
Torture is wrong, counter productive and unnecessary. Gotta love how all the right wing bible thumping folk seem to think Jesus would be just fine with torture.
I mean its not even a question of “do we have to do this? is there another better way?” with you or people like you, its simply “they did bad things, so its ok if we do less bad things”.
Alasdair, simply put your assertion that I am somehow ok with terrorists behavior such as beheadings because I also happen to oppose torturing suspected terrorists (you still aren’t willing to try them and prove it of course) is both absurd and sickening. The “logic” you seem to espouse sets a dangerous precedent and I am heartened that unlike you most Americans are sick of this administration and its tactics of fear. Even if John McCain wins I’ll have some comfort in the fact that unlike YOU he won’t be willing to compromise his morals for such a despicable practice with little to no benefit on top of it.
April 11th, 2008 at 9:21:52 am
Joe Mama, if its morally acceptable for us to do it to them, why is it not morally acceptable for them to do it to us?
First of all, David, what “we are doing to them” is not in the same ballpark, league, or sport as what “they are doing to us.” Period. Full stop. End of sentence. Secondly, and more to the point, ask yourself why we waterboarded the likes of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and then ask yourself why they beheaded the likes of Daniel Pearl . . . and see if you can divine the slightest moral distinction between the two.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:44:10 am
What they did to Daniel Pearl was wrong, no questions whatsoever.
What we are doing, while not as extreme, is still wrong! Not only is it wrong, its not even necessary. I’m not saying Khalid should be given a hotel room at the Four Seasons, but torture is not the answer. Torture is wrong. WHY we did it doesn’t make it right, its still wrong. There are moral grey areas and then there are those situations where things are black and white, and torture, especially given the fact that its not effective is not grey.
April 11th, 2008 at 11:59:56 am
WHY we waterboard terrorists like KSM makes all the difference in the world between us and them. Moreover, one of KSM’s CIA interrogators, John Kiriakou, stated unequivocally that the threat information KSM provided after being waterboarded disrupted a number of terrorist attacks, disproving the oft-repeated notion that interrogation under duress or coercion “never ever” works.
April 11th, 2008 at 12:05:37 pm
David’s just afraid that he’s going to be waterboarded and give up the fact that he has a man-crush on David Hasslehoff (aka “The Hoff”).
April 11th, 2008 at 12:12:53 pm
Please, “bromance” is the preferred nomenclature…
April 11th, 2008 at 2:20:14 pm
So its ok as long as we get something useful out of it? Even if that is true, which I highly doubt, its still wrong. There’s lots of things you can do to a person that MIGHT give you results, so i guess its ok as long as you get what you want right? Without even considering other options?
The terrorists have no way of taking over our country. None. BUt they can make us afraid and they can apparently make some of us take one step closer to being like them, living in a world where morality doesn’t matter, only results do. Our founding fathers would be so very proud.
Its sad that you are willing to give in to the fear the terrorists are generating. Even more sad when you resort to personal attacks.
April 11th, 2008 at 3:06:07 pm
So its ok as long as we get something useful out of it?
Um, no. That is a ridiculous and deliberately obtuse reading of my argument.
But I’d be happy to “consider other options”, just as soon as you offer some.
As for fear-mongering, those of us worried about the very real threat of terrorist attacks have nothing on the crazy leftists who imagine that torture and constitutional violations are perpetrated by ChimpyMcBushHitlerHalliburton and his evil NeoCon hordes as a matter of course.
Even more sad when you resort to personal attacks.
What are you talking about? Let me guess, I’m “questioning your patriotism” too, right?
April 11th, 2008 at 5:15:34 pm
How is it obtuse Joe Mama, you are saying its good because we get information out of it, and that its not bad because other people including the terrorists are doing worse things.
Terrorist threats can and should be taken seriously, but torture is not the way to respond because again it makes us more like them.
Oh and the strawman ChimpyMcBushHitler reference is pretty pathetic. The man HAS done things that are well worth criticizing and attempting to paint all such criticism as only the attacks of extremem leftists with no objectivity speaks more to YOUR unwillingness to consider the man anything but the god of the right, than it does to the opinions and views of his critics.
As for personal attacks, yeah I’d say accusing me of having a love interest in David Hasselhoff counts as a personal attack, if it were in friendly jest it would be one thing, but its clearly not.
Torture is wrong, and telling us if we don’t torture these people we’ll be attacked by terrorists IS fear mongering. If you want to take the extreme step of torturing as the only means left to us, then YOU need to show that no other reasonable option exists. But considering that intelligence experts and others who have experience with this area have said torture is a completely unreliable method of obtaining data, that owuld mean their are other options that are reasonable that they do have at their disposal. One does not need to be an expert in interrogation to know that one approach is wrong.
April 11th, 2008 at 6:51:25 pm
Joe Mama - it would seem that what our David wants to do is to treat his friend Khalid Sheikh Mohammed with an equivalent to Sharia law …
OK … we’re in a judeo-christian country, so he’s an infidel … let’s find one of our local holy men to try him, and sentence him, and then we can fully legally do pretty much anything we want to KSM cuz he’s kufr and a kufr has no human rights …
Me, I still say that making KSM watch Barney re-runs until he ‘fesses up everything is the most effective …
April 11th, 2008 at 11:28:45 pm
Your issue isn’t with me, David, because I never said torture is “good” at all — I simply drew a moral distinction between, say, waterboarding a terrorist in order to obtain information that prevents further terrorist attacks on the one hand, and cutting off an innocent civilian’s head on the other (a moral distinction you sadly appear either unable or unwilling to make).
Likewise, I wasn’t the one accusing you of having a lover interest in David Hasselhoff.