Torture memos

[Undertoad]

I agree. We need more and better information, which is why Obama's push for more transparency in the future is a good thing.

But you remind me that Dux's post contains two internal investigations, CIA and DoJ.

The first is interpreted as political: you did what the WH didn't want you to do, so we're investigating you.

The second is interpreted as the result of politics: you did what the WH wanted you to do, so we're investigating you.

In both cases, there is not enough information to know, yet it's the narrative pushed by the reporters that is generally accepted.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I agree. We need more and better information, which is why Obama's push for more transparency in the future is a good thing.

....

In both cases, there is not enough information to know, yet it's the narrative pushed by the reporters that is generally accepted.

For 5+ years, the narrative pushed by the Bush administration, from political appointees at DoJ, CIA, DoD to the the very top officials in the WH, was "we do not torture" and "harsh interrogation techniques have been directly responsible for preventing attacks on America."

Internal reports from the DoJ OPR and the DoD and CIA IGs, in carrying out their responsibilities to investigate their respective agency policies and practices without regard to political considerations, would appear to suggest otherwise .

Which is why we need full disclosure (w/o harming national security interests) in order to ensure that current oversight and transparency is adequate to prevent illegal acts or acts that are in violation of administrative policies and procedures...or to determine if greater oversight and transparency is needed.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

For 5+ years, the narrative pushed by the Bush administration, from political appointees at DoJ, CIA, DoD to the the very top officials in the WH, was "we do not torture" and "harsh interrogation techniques have been directly responsible for preventing attacks on America."

Internal reports from the DoJ OPR and the DoD and CIA IGs, in carrying out their responsibilities to investigate their respective agency policies and practices without regard to political considerations, would appear to suggest otherwise.

Negative. That is not at all what has been said. They didn't believe it was torture. Period. You don't have to agree with it. You can draw all the analogies and historical references you want, and I won't always disagree with you, but they didn't think it was wrong or they wouldn't have done it. And if they did think it was borderline then why did they do it if it had not produced the intel that it did. Certainly this is still open to debate, but there is ample evidence that it did produce actionable intel. That is significant in this circle jerk of arm chair quarterbacks like yourself trying to say it produced nothing. Who you choose to believe is up to you. You speak as if you know the facts when you know nothing more than anyone else that can read the reports and news. Hop on the train.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Negative. That is not at all what has been said. They didn't believe it was torture. Period. You don't have to agree with it. You can draw all the analogies and historical references you want, and I won't always disagree with you, but they didn't think it was wrong or they wouldn't have done it. And if they did think it was borderline then why did they do it if it had not produced the intel that it did. Certainly this is still open to debate, but there is ample evidence that it did produce actionable intel. That is significant in this circle jerk of arm chair quarterbacks like yourself trying to say it produced nothing. Who you choose to believe is up to you. You speak as if you know the facts when you know nothing more than anyone else that can read the reports and news. Hop on the train.

We can debate who is doing the circle jerk.

The fact remains that CIA,DoJ and DoD IGs all reported to their respective cabinet level directors/secretaries that the proposed "harsh interrogation techniues were potentially (probably) illegal...and those superior chose to ignore those reports (and in one case, CIA, investigate the IG)....and those report were either not shared with the WH or were shared and the WH chose to ignore them as well.

And the fact remains that Bush/Cheney/Rice et al made repeated public pronouncements (and continue to make such pronouncements) that those harsh interrogation techniques directly resulted in protecting the country from attack..and there is no credible evidence to support that.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Redux

there is no credible evidence to support that.

No credible evidence? OK then the administration should release all the documents regarding this issue. To release only those that potentially support "their side" is less than honest. There have been numerous reports that the documents exist.

side note - How bout her majesty Nancy P claiming to know nothing of this and being quite critical till the truth again came out.
She knew all about it from day one - forkin hypocrite.

Originally Posted by classicman

No credible evidence? OK then the administration should release all the documents regarding this issue. To release only those that potentially support "their side" is less than honest. There have been numerous reports that the documents exist.

side note - How bout her majesty Nancy P claiming to know nothing of this and being quite critical till the truth again came out.
She knew all about it from day one - forkin hypocrite.

The next report likely to be released is the DoJ Office of Professional Responsibility investigation conducted last year (and held up by the last Bush AG) that reportedly found that the DoJ attorneys who wrote the torture memos may have deliberately slanted their legal advice to provide the White House with the conclusions it wanted....but we wont know til we see it.

Beyond that I agree that all relevant documents should be released...but in a structured forum like an independent commission rather than just dumping the reports in the media.

And there is plenty of hypocrisy to go around....from the WH to the leaders of both parties in Congress.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

(probably)

Operative word. Open to what you want to believe about the good work that most of these people did.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Negative. That is not at all what has been said. They didn't believe it was torture. Period. You don't have to agree with it. You can draw all the analogies and historical references you want, and I won't always disagree with you, but they didn't think it was wrong or they wouldn't have done it. And if they did think it was borderline then why did they do it if it had not produced the intel that it did. Certainly this is still open to debate, but there is ample evidence that it did produce actionable intel. That is significant in this circle jerk of arm chair quarterbacks like yourself trying to say it produced nothing. Who you choose to believe is up to you. You speak as if you know the facts when you know nothing more than anyone else that can read the reports and news. Hop on the train.

Of course they knew it was torture. They were warned by more than one source that it was. They just had to try and justify it because that's what Cheney wanted. I think it is all his doing.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

They didn't believe it was torture.

Clinton didnt believe he had sex with that woman.

Nixon didnt believe he was a crook

But Bush/Cheney are pure of heart and honest in their public pronouncements.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

Clinton didnt believe he had sex with that woman.

Nixon didnt believe he was a crook

But Bush/Cheney are pure of heart and honest in their public pronouncements.

No shit.