Are you also going to release the information that was false?
Just releasing valuable information gained through torture also presents an unbalanced picture, since we can torture 100 people and if we get one piece of valuable information from 1 of them that counts as a success story. Yay, torture works! Good for us!
Bricker, you should be ashamed of yourself.
No. Torture is wrong independent of its complete and abject unreliability. It is unAmerican, unconstitutional, and will remain a source of national shame until we prosecute everyone responsible for it occurring.
I think it was addressed.
Just showing that there was some success is not enough. You also need to show all the failures of information that we went chasing after because the torture victim lied to stop the torture.
Then we must presume that the intelligence could not have been gleaned, in a timely manner or at all, via some other method. Experts in the field feel that torture is a terrible means of gaining valuable intelligence.
Then we have to weigh how many people it is ok to torture against what information was obtained. Very slippery slope there.
In short I think it is a false dilemma fallacy.
Actually, I would say that I have addressed it. Even if we release what Cheney wants released, we do not know that we would have failed to accomplish the same ends without torture.
The only things that have been released have been legal opinions. I think that we can evaluate those on their own without knowing unsupportable claims for the results of those opinions. The OP chose to frame the question in a particular way that I think is being answered.
(I also note that Cheney’s quote was taken from an article in which Cheney was saying (to paraphrase from an old business dictum), “never explain, never apologize.” Obama wants better relations with the entire world, relations that he needs to patch up by demonstrating different behavior. The release of those legal opinions is taking just that sort of action while releasing information that appears, (but hardly proves) to provide exculpability for the previous administration fails to accomplish Obama’s intent. Were there some way for Cheney to “roll the tape” from an alternative universe where torture was not employed and things actually came out worse, there might be a point to his complaint. As the situation stands, I do not see it.)
I addressed it in post 3.
I’ll reiterate: It would be a bad idea because 1) it proves nothing, and 2) it would be a bad idea to intimate to the world that we are proud of our torture methods.
Um yes, of course they should do it. War is about winning, period. There’s a reason Captain John Cromwell refused to leave his sinking ship in World War II. He had unique information about specific U.S. operations that were about to begin, he knew if he let himself get captured the Japanese would most assuredly make him talk eventually.
The thought that we wouldn’t have done exactly the same thing if we captured a knowledgeable Japanese officer is laughable.
The matter of international tribunals is even more laughable, they are nothing more than a victor’s court. As long as your side wins you’ll never have to worry about one, and if your side loses you’re fucked anyway you look at it.
They are torturing hundreds of prisoners. They are accumulating tons of crap information. They claim sometimes they get good information. Those who believe in ,or have allowed torture have to find a way to justify what they have done. Cheney has a personal stake in making people believe he was just trying to protect us and that he was successful. That is why anything he says has to be greeted with suspicion. He is covering his wrinkly old ass. The torturers have to protect themselves too. They fear prosecution.
Same standing as all the people who post on message boards asking that various things be declassified.
I take the fact that he did not declassify such information when he and his allies had the chance to be sufficient evidence that such information does not, in fact, exist.
Right.
Except CNN and such do not quote us nor do we get the President’s attention.
All well and good but I think Cheney expects that, we don’t.
Ah, the sweet solace of cynicism! I assume you are an atheist? If not, you should definitely consider the advantages it offers one such as yourself.
It appears that Dick’s position really is that the ends justify the means.
I wonder how he feels about chemical weapons?
Last time I checked mustard gas and agent orange worked pretty fucking good at wiping out your enemies. Give Dick some hard numbers and he’ll justify its use also.
Probably not.
This is a ploy on Cheney’s part. Obama probably can’t declassify that information. If he did there could be very real security implications. So, Obama does not release them Cheney can pretend there was all sorts of juicy stuff gleaned from torture that saved thousands of American lies. If Obama does declassify it then Cheney and his ilk can claim Obama is unconcerned with American security by letting such things be known.
Looks like a win/win for Cheney (as long as no one thinks about it too hard). Still, Obama has been adept in the past at turning the tables of such ploys. Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
It’s not cynicism; it’s the indifference to right and wrong that the world affords the powerful. It’s easy to say that there is nothing wrong with war crimes if you don’t have any realistic possibility of ever being the victim of any, as Americans in general don’t. Ask a Kurd or a Tutsi, though, if they share **Martin Hyde’s **view.
Mustard gas was actually of questionable utility in warfare in many cases. Agent Orange wasn’t that great either, there are much better and more effective chemical weapon systems these days. But almost all of them have the serious problem that a shift in the wind can put it right on top of the people who deploy it.
Because there is no evidence that such “success story” memos exist. If Cheney knows they don’t exist, he has nothing to lose by demanding their release, because he is in no danger of being contradicted. He can use these phantom memos as a bludgeon against the Obama administration.
Didn’t they already do this a while back? I seem to recall a press thingy where GeeDub offered us several examples of terrorist plots thwarted by such information. I also recall that they were examined closely and proved to be a crock. Anybody got the Google Fu to track that?
I can’t believe I get to be the weapons wonk.
Agent Orange wasn’t a chemical weapon. It was a defoliant.
Like torture, Civilian causalities are often a horrible part of war, and a pretty common one in regards to missile strikes. Three days into Office, Obama authorized missile strikes that killed a number of civilians. HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost I highly doubt he wasn’t informed that civilians would probably be killed in the strike. That’s basically par for the course.
We release this information in total to the world. Not only just the civilian causalities, but also the military objectives achieved, or not achieved. The missile strike killed a number of foreign militants, as well as an al Queda operative.
Announcing the full method and results isn’t bragging to the world. It’s simply full disclosure so that they can form their own informed opinion about our justifications
However, suppose we only released the information that “Obama authorized miltiary strikes to kill civilians”. Doesn’t that present a very slanted view of what actually happened? Isn’t the rest important, at least to place it in context?
That wouldn’t be very accurate. The strike wasn’t authorized so that civilians would die. Not that that isn’t a horrible collateral whatever it is, but the way you phrased it just isn’t the truth of the matter. Whereas, “look, we pounded this guy’s head against the wall and he told us about Achmed” is pretty much a straightforward statement.
I disagree. Saying that “we torture and got results”, is nothing more than saying, “we torture.” Because, for the millionth time, the ends do not justify the means.