As I understand it, nobody suggests that torture is an ideal policy option. Most people who defend the Bush Administration argue that the unique threat of international terrorism justifies the use of certain otherwise-reprehensible techniques. I’m frankly appalled by this crude utilitarian calculus, but I can at least understand the logic (and surface appeal) of their view. So it’s a bit jarring to read the latest round of torture memos and find that there is absolutely no conclusive evidence that torture developed critical, actionable intelligence. There is, to be sure, plenty of information that suggests some combination of interrogation techniques provided useful information. But this hardly vindicates Dick Cheney’s enthusiasm for detainee mistreatment.

So my question is simple: Was it worth it? Was undermining the rule of law, contravening established norms of basic human decency, and ruining our international reputation worth gleaning a few nuggets of information that may or may not have resulted from “enhanced interrogation?” After skimming the memos, it seems clear that even the most generous cost benefit analysis has difficulty rationalizing torture.

I hate to lapse into cliche, but we’ve reached a point where the justifications for mistreating detainees have become so attenuated that “shifting the goalposts” is now an understatement of epic proportions. First, we were told that torture was necessary to address an existential threat. Next, it was the dreaded “ticking time bomb.” Finally, Cheney and his surrogates assured us that torture had produced “actionable intelligence.” If these memos can’t even establish that torture and torture alone is necessary to clear this latest hurdle, isn’t it time to acknowledge that it simply wasn’t worth it?

“Obama’s is the speech of a young senator who was once a part-time law professor–platitudinous and preachy, vague and pseudo-thoughtful in an abstract kind of way. [...] He’s president. He’s not just a guy participating in a debate. But he’s more comfortable as a debater, not as someone who takes responsibility for decisions. [...]  Cheney’s is the speech of a grownup, of a chief executive, of a statesman. He’s sober, realistic and concrete, stands up for his country and its public officials, and has an acute awareness of the consequences of the choices one makes as a public official and a willingness to take responsibility for those choices.” ~ William Kristol

Fleetingly, I thought I should just write: ROTFLMAO but it seemed too trite.  Something this vapid and delusional deserves more of a response than mere internet jargon can provide.  Obama’s speech is here, and Cheney’s here.  Read them both – and bear in mind, Josh Marshall’s quip as he live-blogged Cheney’s oratory – “11:45 AM … Wondering how long it took Bill Kristol to write this speech.”

My questions are manifold.  Why are the Republicans letting Cheney shoot  off his “sober, realistic and concrete” mouth?  Hasn’t anyone learned yet that within the ranks of either party there simply does not exist a public speaker who can take on the President?  This person does not (yet) exist.  Any attempt to outshine or counter Obama will fall short, and this is only a magnified truth when the speaker in question is Dick Cheney, a man who is – despite the adoration of 21% of the American populace – despised even more than his former boss by the vast majority of Americans.  As Greenwald notes, Cheney’s speech was “just the same recycled, extremist neoconservative pablum that drove the U.S. into the deep ditch in which it currently finds itself.”  Just another sign of cancer in the fast-decaying conservative movement. [Read more →]

“So if the Democrats want a truth commission, and the Republicans and Dick Cheney want a truth commission, why can’t we order up a double order of truth commission? Am I missing something here?”  ~ John Cole

Of course neither the Democrats nor the Republicans actually want a truth commission.  They all just want to be properly postured when it becomes apparent that a truth commission is inevitable.

To me, Pelosi’s denial (and accusation against the CIA) lays bare a deeper truth about the Democrats.  Without Obama they’d be nearly as big a mess as the Republicans.  Most of them are complicit in the Bush torture program and the wars.  The party is almost headless without Obama – led by the fickle and hardly inspiring Reid/Pelosi duo.  After Obama, if conservatives learn anything over the next eight years – yes, I’m predicting it will be eight – unless the Democrats get some sort of order and discipline and more importantly, some grander vision, then I think the GOP should have no trouble at all coming in and cleaning up.

[Read more →]

(Updates below and continuing as more reactions come in…)

You can read the memos here.  Sullivan has some initial thoughts up here:

I do not believe that any American president has ever orchestrated, constructed or so closely monitored the torture of other human beings the way George W. Bush did. It is clear that it is pre-meditated; and it is clear that the parsing of torture techniques that you read in the report is a simply disgusting and repellent piece of dishonesty and bad faith. When you place it alongside the Red Cross’ debriefing of the torture victims, the fit is almost perfect.

Michael Scherer:

The legal memorandum for the CIA, prepared by Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, reviewed 10 enhanced techniques for interrogating Zubaydah, and determined that none of them constituted torture under U.S. criminal law. The techniques were: attention grasp, walling (hitting a detainee against a flexible wall), facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, insects placed in a confinement box, and waterboarding.

[Read more →]