Steve, Steve, Steve,

We NEED these lemmings to keep suggesting that torture is OK as long as it brings us "good information". It sets their moral compass to dead South. It also allows clearer thinkers to keep the debate open for investigation and prosecution. If these idiots were half smart they'd let it die. Keeping it out in the daylight will force law enforcement people (Justice department) to act on it.

Breaking a Treaty, with the same war crime that sent Japaneese and Nazi evil doers to execution must be the goal to pursue. That the Bush apologists are willing to use the "following orders" and "it worked" line of reasoning is what we want. Let them continue to nauseate us, as it will be their downfall. To the Hauge!!!

I am personally shocked that the right would cherry pick information and publish it as a complete story...and of course it will be played in an endless loop by the MSM carefully omitting the facts.

HuffPo is no different - They carried the NYT lede and only a small portion of the first part. So, posters, even at HP, are going overboard.

Any little nugget of information - especially if it is taken out of context - acts as a salve with which to assuage these nincompoops' twisted worldview.

Billo Kristol is already pushing the first part of Blair's quote. Billo should think about his penchant of running around with only one shoe on - it's beginning to diminish his gait! Beware of one-shoe intellects! -Kevo

Sue for remedy...

Nothing you can say will change the minds of those who want to legalize torture.

That's why Barack Obama needs to stand up on this and actively seek an investigation and criminal cases. A failure to punish those who sought to legalize torture, will only guarantee that torture will happen again.

To say "we do not torture" is obviously not enough. We need judicial closure.

Okay, but as long as we're claiming intellectual honesty, here, let's include the full quotation, not, "would not have approved those methods," but "I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given."

HuffPo did carry the entire NYT piece, although one has to click on to read the article. Now, how many viewers ever take the time to click? Just so much easier to simply read ledes or watch scrolls - Ever notice the way FAUX uses scrolls to push their propaganda? CNN is not much better.

For that matter, we can also say with confidence that torture "cost American lives," and produced intelligence that could have been acquired without abuse. sorry, but you don't know that because we didn't try. this is just wishful thinking.

And what was the "high value information"? Probably that Saddam Hussein was not linked to Al Qaida. It took them almost 300 waterboardings, but they finally figured it out.

Have I mentioned lately how frustrating it is that we're still having this "debate"?

I say keep the debate going until a Special Prosecutor is announced.

An important implication of Blair's statement is being overlooked. No one is noticing that he's calling Bush a liar. The key part of this statement is this: "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means."

That statement is highly significant, because it contradicts the standard Bush narrative on this subject. According to the standard Bush narrative, we called in the torturers only after the non-torturers failed. In other words, we tortured only after determining that the information we needed could not be "obtained through other means." But if it was true that we had tried and failed to get the information through other means, then it would be nonsense to say "there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means."

So Blair isn't saying that torture is effective. Saying torture is effective means that torture gets us information we weren't going to get without torture. Blair is telling us we might have gotten the same information some other way, but apparently we didn't even try. And that Bush et al are lying when they claim we did.

Weal contortionist post. Blair said what he said.

He needs to go.

Specifically, what Blair said is in direct contradiction with a claim made by his predecessor, DNI McConnell, who said we used waterboarding only in the following circumstances: "Situations where there’s been interrogation over a period of time. It was unsuccessful. Water boarding was used and then information started to flow."

According to McConnell, we do indeed know that "the same information could [not] have been obtained through other means."

No one is asking this question: why did Blair contradict McConnell? Which one of them is telling the truth?

Let's see - when the Obama Administration releases incomplete intelligence assessments which hew to the party line but suppress important facts, that is not "politicizing the intelligence"; that is helping Steve avoid boredom by encouraging the debate to move on.

Seems clear.

FWIW, Bin Laden believed that successful attacks also aided Qaeda recruitment.

"The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world"

The bottom line is that torture is a horrible crime and the people who did it are evil fucks who belong in prison.

What is so hard about this?

I murdered by wife and got a lot of money from her life insurance. I'm a happy, rich man now. The end justifies the means, right?

The point is not weather the torture worked. The point is still that torture is illegal.

Killing my ex wife would also "work", but I doubt that I could use that as a defense. And it surely would have an impact on finding wife number 2, don't you think?

I see Franklin and I are on the same page. :)

I'm with Armando. The careful qualifications didn't save this from being a disgraceful statement.

Let's see - when the Obama Administration releases incomplete intelligence assessments which hew to the party line but suppress important facts, that is not "politicizing the intelligence

Yes, because Blair also said under oath that torture was not effective.

That's not called "politicizing intelligence," that's called "not being a moron."

Have I mentioned lately how frustrating it is that we're still having this "debate"?

Or that most of the debate is about the wrong thing? Not "should we do it?" but "when and under what circumstances should we do it?"

See the second part of Getting it Wrong

We convicted Japanese "war criminals" after World War II for using waterboarding. If only those poor suckers had raised the defense "but it worked!" they would have been acquitted, right?

Sure.

Steve says: This is the point at which those overly-excited conservative slink away

I don't think you've been paying attention.

This is the point at which those overly-excited conservative slink away.

Or embrace further dishonesty. Never underestimate the power of cognitive dissonance -- especially when jackasses like Maguire put on a show 24 / 7.

I don't doubt that in some instances, torture led detainees to give up information U.S. officials wanted to know. I also don't doubt, however, that torture led detainees to say all kind of things just to make the pain stop, much of which was nonsense that led to a waste of officials' time.

And there's no way to tell the difference. Leaving aside the moral disgrace of torture, and the stupidity of throwing away an American moral standing that has stood since George Freakin' Washington, the signal to noise ratio of the information gleaned by torture is just too low to be useful.

As intelligence, that is. George Orwell had it right -- the purpose of torture is torture. That's what you and your ilk are defending, Maguire. Shame on you.

maguire: "when the Obama Administration releases incomplete intelligence assessments which hew to the party line but suppress important facts"

Someone else said it better than I could: "If there exist documents that prove that torture prevented attacks on the US, and those documents can be released without jeopardizing national security, why didn't the Bush administration release them before leaving office?"

Tom, feel free to answer that question.

Thanks to too much television and not enough reality, far too many people have no idea what torture is. It is not the controlled application physical discomfort, but the rapid and complete erosion of a fundamental value.

Torture destroys the humanity of everyone it touches. Stripping people of their dignity, objectifying them, inadvertently murdering in some cases (it is not possible to torture someone and see him as fully human at the same time), shows that WE have become less than human.

I'm not surprised that some cannot or will not acknowledge this. I am worried though, that those who do understand are not making the case strongly enough.

To the larger question. Cheney has said that it is necessary to go over to the dark side to defeat our enemies. That's not even comic book logic. Since when have brutality and injustice EVER been a viable strategy? Destruction and threats are oppressive. They bring misery and fear and create chaos, not peace and stability.

Leaders inspire. They lead by example and uphold an admirable standard for all to see. They set a fair and orderly course that others follow willingly, not meekly or out of fear of the bully. In this case, those in power were both entirely unworthy of their positions and incompetent in their actions. They failed utterly, and if we want to move past this chapter and restore a sense of honor and dignity, we *must tell the truth. All of it. It is good this is coming to light.