Cheney Throws Bush Under The Bush

[piezoe]

If Diane Feinstein's family was being held by ISIS and we captured one of their guys who could tell us how to rescue them, she would be demanding that the CIA put the screws to him. Is there anyone here who can honestly say they wouldn't?

I reserve a special kind of contempt for people who keep silent while others do the dirty but necessary work then come out after the threat has passed and start moralizing about how unacceptable it all was.

I don't know Feinstein personally, but it seems equally likely, even more likely, that under the hypothetical circumstances you put forward, she wouldn't be in favor of torture. She has made it clear that she doesn't believe that torture is effective in obtaining useful information.

Does torture work?, is an interesting question. If we knew specifically how much useful information was obtained from those who had been tortured, versus those who hadn't, and we had a large enough population of both torturees and non-torturees, we might get an answer. But unless the populations were large, selected randomly, and all information obtained was thoroughly followed up, our results would be highly unreliable. Obviously, we don't have reliable data that can provide an answer. What we have only unreliable data because someone, once tortured, can't be "un-tortured", the sample of torturees wasn't randomized among all possible candidates for torture, and all information obtained probably wasn't thoroughly followed up.

Furthermore, an equally important question, can't be addressed using the information available. That is, is the damage done to national reputation worth the information obtained by torture? We can't answer this question. We have only subjective guesses -- self-serving in many cases!

One can object to torture on moral grounds, and one can object on objective grounds. I object to it on both.

I don't know who your final remark refers to, but obviously it can't refer to Feinstein or her committee. When the CIA was engaged in torturing "detainees", Congress was kept in the dark, ironically just as the detainees were. This was a program begun in absolute secrecy. Congress was initially lied to, and only a tiny number of operatives plus Cheney and Bush knew what was really going on.

May I suggest some enlightening reading: "Secrecy", by Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

 

[piezoe]

America has rarely* been the aggressor in wars. We've almost always participated to STOP OTHER AGGRESSORS! In that sense, we've been rather noble about it all.

OH MY LORD! WHAT INCREDIBLE BULLSHIT!!! (Are you being kept in the dark and fed mushrooms?)

This unbelievably illinformed statement of Scats rises to the same dizzying heights as the one made by some other, long since departed ET'er when he posted that the Fed was impotent and had no effect on markets!

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I disagree that congress was kept in the dark. They knew exactly what was going on. They may not have known the exact details of what happened at dark sites in foreign countries, but they knew the CIA was shipping people there for interrogation. They knew damn well it wasn't for the weather or local cuisine. I am sure if they pushed, they would have been told any details they wished to know. They preferred to look the other way until the danger had passed.

Feinstein's motives in this are clouded by her ongoing dispute with the CIA over allegations the agency hacked into congressional computers. She couldn't have cared less about journalist Sharyl Atkinson being hacked by the administration, but when it was her committee staffers, different reaction.

As for questions about whether torture works, they are ridiculous. Of course it works. Anyone in the intelligence community or in the military who was trained for possible capture knows it works. They are trained to drag out the process, but it is accepted that at some point eveyone breaks. Liberals like to confuse the issue with the question of police beating confessions out of suspects. Of course those are unreliable. But information provided by terrorist detainees can be cross-checked, compared to what others said or denied, etc. It is never as white and black as "OBL is hiding in this house in pakistan." That doesn't mean it isn't useful.

I also disagree that there is some huge damage from doing it, except that which we have wilfully inflicted on ourselves. It could be argued it has a deterrent effect. Potential terrorists might have second thought sif they know they will face an unpleasant experience upon capture. In any event, i am not particularly concerned about what european leftists who freeload off our defense efforts think about us. I am more concerned about protecting our own country. Too bad we have a president who feels differently.

 

[piezoe]

I disagree that congress was kept in the dark. They knew exactly what was going on. They may not have known the exact details of what happened at dark sites in foreign countries, but they knew the CIA was shipping people there for interrogation. They knew damn well it wasn't for the weather or local cuisine. I am sure if they pushed, they would have been told any details they wished to know. They preferred to look the other way until the danger had passed.

Feinstein's motives in this are clouded by her ongoing dispute with the CIA over allegations the agency hacked into congressional computers. She couldn't have cared less about journalist Sharyl Atkinson being hacked by the administration, but when it was her committee staffers, different reaction.

As for questions about whether torture works, they are ridiculous. Of course it works. Anyone in the intelligence community or in the military who was trained for possible capture knows it works. They are trained to drag out the process, but it is accepted that at some point eveyone breaks. Liberals like to confuse the issue with the question of police beating confessions out of suspects. Of course those are unreliable. But information provided by terrorist detainees can be cross-checked, compared to what others said or denied, etc. It is never as white and black as "OBL is hiding in this house in pakistan." That doesn't mean it isn't useful.

I also disagree that there is some huge damage from doing it, except that which we have wilfully inflicted on ourselves. It could be argued it has a deterrent effect. Potential terrorists might have second thought sif they know they will face an unpleasant experience upon capture. In any event, i am not particularly concerned about what european leftists who freeload off our defense efforts think about us. I am more concerned about protecting our own country. Too bad we have a president who feels differently.

I like your response. It is intelligent, makes some sense, etc. But is it correct? At at one point you say Congress "... knew exactly what was going on." but in the next breath you say: "They may not have known the exact details of what happened at dark sites in foreign countries, but they knew the CIA was shipping people there for interrogation." That doesn't sound to me like they "knew exactly what was going on." Then you say: " I am sure if they pushed, they would have been told any details they wished to know." That's where conjecture comes in.

 

[dbphoenix]

I like your response. It is intelligent, makes some sense, etc. But is it correct? At at one point you say Congress "... knew exactly what was going on." but in the next breath you say: "They may not have known the exact details of what happened at dark sites in foreign countries, but they knew the CIA was shipping people there for interrogation." That doesn't sound to me like they "knew exactly what was going on." Then you say: " I am sure if they pushed, they would have been told any details they wished to know." That's where conjecture comes in.

And let's not overlook the snark in the last two sentences of his post. Would have been considerably better without it.

 

[CaptainObvious]

They know until it becomes politically unpopular to know. Then they go all Sgt. Shultz. Par for the course from a criminally corrupt government.

 

[piezoe]

They know until it becomes politically unpopular to know. Then they go all Sgt. Shultz. Par for the course from a criminally corrupt government.

Well Cheney has been gung ho torture all along. And Bush, well what can you say. He turned out to be the idiot my friend Joe said he would be. Can you blame an idiot for anything? But the Congress? Do you think they really knew.?

 

[Scataphagos]

"... In any event, i am not particularly concerned about what european leftists who freeload off our defense efforts think about us. I am more concerned about protecting our own country. Too bad we have a president who feels differently.

Hear, hear!

 

[dbphoenix]

Well Cheney has been gung ho torture all along. And Bush, well what can you say. He turned out to be the idiot my friend Joe said he would be. Can you blame an idiot for anything? But the Congress? Do you think they really knew.?

To anyone who can read (which does not necessarily include Congressmen), this has been common knowledge since Abu Ghraib. This report is nothing particularly new.

 

[CaptainObvious]

Well Cheney has been gung ho torture all along. And Bush, well what can you say. He turned out to be the idiot my friend Joe said he would be. Can you blame an idiot for anything? But the Congress? Do you think they really knew.?

The entire congress? In the purest sense of the word, no. Did Feinstein? Absolutely. Did every member of congress in any type of leadership position? Absolutely. The rest chose to remain willfully ignorant. They knew. The press knew. Anyone with the remotest of connections knew.