I worry though when we capture these leaders that we no longer have the option of using any of the enhanced interrogation techniques because the president took those off the table. When you've got people in captivity we'd like our CIA officials in particular to have the capacity to do more than just ask the terrorists to please tell us what they want.Spencer Ackerman at The Washington Independent wrote in response:
I guess it’s not so surprising that a Cheney loves torture, but I don’t recall Liz Cheney being quite so explicit about her enthusiasm for torturing people. More significant is her presumption that only torture is effective in eliciting intelligence, which every experienced interrogator -- Ali Soufan, Malcolm Nance, the people at the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group — will tell her is the direct opposite of the truth. It would be interesting to hear her tell Gen. David Petraeus why the Central Command leader is wrong about the relationship between torture and success in counterinsurgency, to say nothing of Petraeus’ views on the relationship between torture and the moral fabric of America. No one who doesn’t have the last name Cheney or hasn’t ever depended on a Cheney for a position or a paycheck believes that Liz Cheney has more credibility on this subject than these individuals.Is there some CPAC rule that says those dangerous weapons, intelligence and truth and logic, must be checked at the door?
Ralph
I'll bet people cringe, even teabaggers, when the Cheney's go off on enhanced interrogation. But I was surprised that CPAC rolled out "American Exceptionalism" yesterday - a completely undefensible concept. I notice, by the way, that the Cheney's have backed off of the "Unitary Executive," now that Papa Dick is no longer in the executive [wait! Was he in the executive?]...
ReplyDeleteWell, yes and no. Yes, when he wanted to pull the strings of the marionette. No when accountability was called for.
ReplyDelete