Re: The Chinese Wall

I recall distinctly that Jamie Gorelick became the goat for the Right-wing blog because she supposedly caused the FBI and CIA not be able to work together before 9/11. Not only was that BS, it is now proven that the Bush administration actually caused said wall to be (re)-established. [if it ever really came down, that is]

Cheney might say, as he always does, that "they kept us safe" for 7 years, but, in fact, it was obviously though shear luck and happenstance than anything else.

The facts are never as simple as partisans would like.

Here's how I'm reading this week's news. Waterboarding Khalid Sheik Mohammad did not save Los Angeles, as conservative bloggers have claimed. They read the May 30, 2005 Bradbury memo--or rather misread it--and jumped to the conclusion they prefer. The memo says the LA plot was discovered as a result of the interrogation. It had already been thwarted through conventional intelligence and cooperation with several Asian nations.

Liberal partisans are quick to make the same mistake, as the quoted passage from Greg Sargent demonstrates. Information gathered from the interrogation of KSM may not have thwarted the attack, but that doesn't mean the information wasn't valuable. It may require some extrapolation on Mr. Cheney's part, but a deeper knowledge of how al Qaeda works may have improved our nation's response to a terrorist threat.

Is all this frustratingly cast in shades of grey rather than the satisfying black and white partisanship demands? Of course. That's the way of the real world.

Why isn't Cheney talking about that episode of 24 where Jack Bauer takes a cheese grater to the forehead of Mohammad Atta's little brother and thwarts his plan to blow up the Westminster Dog Show?

On that score, it's worth asking why the White House and its allies aren't pushing back a bit harder on the Bushies' claims.

Uh, Obama has been in office for days, and we're asking why he hasn't tackled this, along with the other hundred major accomplishments in the middle of a crisis?

What about CONGRESS sitting through briefings and doing nothing?

Another intelligence tool was tracking money. The Bush-leaguers ignored any "terrorist" threat and directed the country's resources at Cuba. They were hounding Cuban emigrates who tried send money back to their families.

Steve, you're missing the point. Noting that torture doesn't work as interrogation concedes no moral ground at all.

It's as if you're afraid of being confronted by the argument: 'well, IF it would save the lives of millions of people, would you torture one small child?' That's high school debate club stuff.

Get a grip.

We must not torture because it is wrong, not because it doesn't work. We wouldn't torture even if it DID work, because it would still be wrong.

But to base the argument on the idea that it does not matter if torture works, when it doesn't, is what concedes ground to the bad guys.

As you note (it sounds familiar) when the fact that torture fails as an interrogation technique is established, "then conservative torture apologists literally have nothing else to say."

Good.

But if you skip over the part where it doesn't work, they have a LOT to say -- all of it evil, hallucinatory rationalization (pretty much anything Cheney says), but nevertheless something that we could easily deny them: so it's not smart to skip over that part.

I'd accept former Marine, and Vietnam vet (and Princeton graduate) word over the serial draft dodger(read: TRAITOR!!), Yale dropout, drunk and balls licker of those in power, Dick Cheney, any day.

It baffles me as to why Cheney's "torture worked" statements are taken as anything other than an admission of guilt. I'm sure the Third Reich would have said the same thing.

A good analogy would have that Bush and Cheney get caught holding up a bank and plead, "we were stealing for YOU!"

However, I believe that whatever memos or documents are revealed, the revelations will only be further juvenile mumbo jumbo just like the torture memos. They prove only that these men are craven self delusionists who strive only to inflate their already high opinions of themselves.

The truth is that Bush and Cheney didn't order torture to try and get any information, or for any other "proper purpose." They did it because they were pissed off that these guys had made them look like the incompetement fools they were and are. It's like any bully when they're exposed as the piece of excrement they are - they want to bash the exposer.

theAmericanist - If torture works, Bush defenders get to argue that it should be legal, but they didn't, and they don't get to argue that the law should be ignored. And that is why the White House does and should stick to the legality issue. The efficacy debate should take place elsewhere.

Information gathered from the interrogation of KSM may not have thwarted the attack, but that doesn't mean the information wasn't valuable. It may require some extrapolation on Mr. Cheney's part, but a deeper knowledge of how al Qaeda works may have improved our nation's response to a terrorist threat.

Obviously it worked! That is why KSM was waterboarded 183 times, each time he yielded more and more valuable information and deeper knowledge. If it didn't work, wouldn't they have stopped after waterboarding 1? And how can we doubt Mr. Cheney who educated the nation with a very nuanced view on how Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11? Only stupid partisans worry about facts, reasons and logic; the reasonable people know that the truth ALWAYS lies somewhere in the inaccessible middle.

Cheney claims it worked and there are classified documents that say so. The government says it didn't work and so there are no documents to release.

So they will not release those documents that say it did. Got that?

Classic he said / she said and Cheney's claims never get refuted and Fox News passes out more boxes of foil for everyone.

Many people in the US think that torture is justifiable and proper. After 9/11 even more people in the US supported it. Currently, a smaller minority support torture. Happily, for the moment, a majority is opposed to it. But don't think that can't change.

Not very cheerful, is it?

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

Tec619 said: "I'd accept former Marine, and Vietnam vet (and Princeton graduate) word over the serial draft dodger(read: TRAITOR!!), Yale dropout, drunk and balls licker of those in power, Dick Cheney, any day."

I disagree strongly! Being a serial draft dodger was an honorable affair, given the times, and dropping out of Yale makes way for someone with the intellectual capacity to get something out of it. To be fair, too, Dick is more of a ball biter or buster than licker. No, the only irrefutable evidence we currently have that our Dick is a TRAITOR (your caps and mine), is the fact that he and the Regal Moron lied our country into a war. So, let's not pile on.

There is no question that torture works. Anyone who wants to make a prisoner suffer knows that torture will do the trick. And torture works for our enemies every bit as well as it works for us. One reason to oppose the use of torture and insist on compliance with international law is to reduce the likelihood that Americans will be tortured. Even if torture produced reliable intelligence it would reliably expose more Americans--and others--to torture for its own sake.

Information gathered from the interrogation of KSM may not have thwarted the attack, but that doesn't mean the information wasn't valuable.

Does it mean that any supposedly valuable information couldn't have been acquired by not illegally torturing him?

It may require some extrapolation on Mr. Cheney's part, but a deeper knowledge of how al Qaeda works may have improved our nation's response to a terrorist threat.

Again, every credible expert on this issue says the same info could have been or was obtained without engaging in illegal torture.
Sorry if I'm being too partisan for you, but this is where the argument justifying illegal torture breaks down, so to speak.
It's illegal under our constitution based on the treaty we signed, bottom line. None of these "well maybe sorta something useful may or may not have been gained by doing it so let's not get be partisan and get too outraged by it" justifications change the facts as told repeatedly by people who actually know what they're talking about. Most of the time torture doesn't provide any useful information, and when it does, there's always a better and legal way to obtain it. Period.

For a lot of valuable insight and powerful analysis concerning the torture issue you all should check out Andrew Sullivan's blog at The Atlantic. Very eye-opening.

"Torture is the weapon of cowards and bullies and monsters. Cheney is all three. Prosecute him"
-Andrew Sullivan

Bottom line: Effective or not, torture is torture. Torture is against US law. We are a nation of laws. No one is above the law. Those who authorized torture are criminals. Criminals should be prosecuted. End of story.

I oppose torture...except in Cheney's case. Put him on the waterboard.

The memo says the LA plot was discovered as a result of the interrogation. It had already been thwarted through conventional intelligence and cooperation with several Asian nations.

Liberal partisans are quick to make the same mistake, as the quoted passage from Greg Sargent demonstrates. Information gathered from the interrogation of KSM may not have thwarted the attack, but that doesn't mean the information wasn't valuable.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. If the plot had already been thwarted by US cooperation with Asian intelligence services, how is it logical to say that we only found out about the plan through waterboarding? Doesn't the fact that the other intelligence services communicated the information about the plan to us mean that we already knew about the plan?

You're also making the common mistake of thinking that KSM gave us nothing but accurate information under torture. Given the broad range of claims that he made, we spent a lot of time trying to figure out what was good information and what was bullshit when we could have had good information much more quickly with conventional (ie FBI) interrogation.

The fact that we managed to find one or two diamonds by digging through the pile of manure with our bare hands doesn't mean that's the only way they could have been found, or that it was even the best way.

You're basically saying that it was fine for the Bush administration to use the least efficient method possible because, hey, they eventually managed to find one or two small pieces of information, and we're not allowed to point out that they could have had much more and much better information had they not used those methods because ... well, I guess because the ends justify the means.

p.s. Mueller is still director of the FBI. Shep Smith at Fox has said it best. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/hes-gone-rogue.html

I love the history of this issue:

1) The United States does not torture. All our enemy combatants are probably be treated better than the caves we pulled them from. The get 3 square meals a day.

2) Well, since the story broke about Gitmo, the US uses enhanced interrogation techniques to extract information. It's necessary to protect you, the citizen, from harm.

3) Well, since even more bad PR broke, those enhanced interrogation techniques were approved by a board of experts that says there is no harm physically or mentally

4) Well, since Padilla is now a basket case and border-line lunatic, and prison stories are breaking of harsh techniques from independent watch-dog groups, we can assure you that our enhanced interrogations have given us valuable information that has protected you, the citizen, from harm. These guys are BAD MOFOS. Trust us.

5) Water boarding?? That's not torture. Are you kidding me? It happens so infrequently. Man up! It's national security we are talking about. It's probably more dangerous swimming in the ocean. You can ACTUALLY drown from that.

6) Okay, some experts we are trying to discredit says that its torture - well maybe it is torture, from a certain perspective. Stuff happens, I guess. Legally there is some gray areas - they aren't citizens, and international law is fuzzy in certain respects. We declare that no harm was done. No harm, no foul.

7) Okay, it was torutre - but we gathered life saving intel. We saved forests, cities, and small countries from certain destruction. In the end, the ends justify the means, right??

8) Alright, so some top level officials are now leaking that maybe we didn't save anything, actually collected moderately useful info that could have been extracted by other means, and maybe we tarnished our reputation as a nation... But seriously, they're not American or Christian, so why even cry over spilled milk?

9) Seriously America is more safe now than in 2000 - just don't travel on any other hemisphere, and make sure you keep up with your geography - you'll have to know what countries it's dangerous to be an American in. In fact, don't travel, the world is a dangerous place!!

10) Okay, so that story broke - one guy was water boarded 183 times within a few weeks but it was for his own good, we were helping him along in his religion. Read the scriptures. If anything we did him a service!

**I wonder how long this will get dragged out for. So far, 8 years and counting. In the next year, I predict scapegoats will be named and congressional hearings will be performed. This is what the Bush Administration will be remembered for.

This is all insanity really.

You could turn this "torture saves lives" argument around on conservatives by pointing out that, by the same logic, abortion saves lives because it may have prevented the next Hitler from being born. Let's see how long they keep up this radical utilitarianism.

"I oppose torture...except in Cheney's case. Put him on the waterboard."

Don't forget to waterboard Bush. Question him on his service record :-)

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense. If the plot had already been thwarted by US cooperation with Asian intelligence services, how is it logical to say that we only found out about the plan through waterboarding? Doesn't the fact that the other intelligence services communicated the information about the plan to us mean that we already knew about the plan?

The plot was thwarted by breaking up an al Qaeda cell. See this May 2007 White House fact sheet (you have to scroll down a bit to "We Also Broke Up Other Post-9/11 Aviation Plots.")

But KSM wasn't even captured at the time. Breaking the cell thwarted the plot, but that wasn't known until KSM filled in the missing pieces--at least according to the Bradbury memo.

You're also making the common mistake of thinking that KSM gave us nothing but accurate information under torture.

No I'm not. I'm only saying that some information may have proven reliable and valuable.

You're basically saying that it was fine for the Bush administration to use the least efficient method possible because, hey, they eventually managed to find one or two small pieces of information,

I'm saying nothing of the sort. What I'm saying is that it's a mistake to jump from "What we learned from KSM didn't stop the LA plot" all the way to "We never learned anything of value from KSM". That's what doesn't make any sense.

If its okay to torture KSM, I guess it would have been okay to torture Timothy Mcveigh, no?

No I'm not. I'm only saying that some information may have proven reliable and valuable.

And I'm saying that every credible expert on this subject says that such supposedly reliable information can also be obtained without illegally breaking the law.

What I'm saying is that it's a mistake to jump from "What we learned from KSM didn't stop the LA plot" all the way to "We never learned anything of value from KSM". That's what doesn't make any sense.

And I'm saying that you apparently assume that such supposedly valuable information could only be obtained through illegal torture.
I'm also saying it's extremely disappointing to see a usually sensible commenter making such arguments while ignoring the overwhelming weight of the evidence on this subject.
But I guess I'm just being too "partisan", demanding that our country actually abide by the treaties we sign, treaties which have the same power as laws passed by congress under our constitution.

illegally breaking the law

sorry, redundant--I meant "illegally torturing".

Bottom line--Do we get to pick and choose what laws we follow depending on whether we maybe coulda woulda gained some "valuable" information?

My point, Mnemo, is that for some, it's far more important to declare that Mr. Cheney is a Big Liar than it is to try to sort through the murky and sometimes contradictory facts to get at the truth.

Those who seek to interpret any particular event to support a treasured bias must necessarily ignore facts that don't fit the preferred story. That's how we got into the current mess, after all.

Yesm is right -- that was one of the points of the Zelikow memo: if these memos made it legal to torture foreigners like this under the Bush administration, then cop can torture any US citizen. THAT's why I keep insisting that we start with the practical fact that torture doesn't work: it's not ground to concede.

As he put it: "Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. So the OLC must argue, in effect, that the methods and the conditions of confinement in the CIA program could constitutionally be inflicted on American citizens in a county jail.

"In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest -- if the alleged national security justification was compelling."

So looking only at the LEGAL aspects of torture, or even including the immorality of it, skips over a critical point: it doesn't fucking work.

And I'm saying that you apparently assume that such supposedly valuable information could only be obtained through illegal torture.

You're mistaken. That is not my assumption. I am stating the obverse: Some information gathered through torture may, in fact, have held value. I do not disagree that the same information might have been elicited in other ways.

Well, Cheney has been a proven liar on multiple occassions--including his claim to have formally requested certain documents that prove torture works, or whether such documents even exist, or what information was gained that was supposedly so valuable. If it's this KSM situation, then it's not a very convincing example.
Also, when you've proven yourself to be a liar on multiple occassions regarding some very serious issues, then I would say the onus is on the proven liar to put up or shut up. Oops, there we go being partisan again.

Well, Cheney has been a proven liar on multiple occassions--including his claim to have formally requested certain documents that prove torture works,

Mr. Cheney did not lie about his "formal request." He had stated in a televised interview that he made the request to the CIA. He had, in fact, made the request of the National Archives. I refer you to Talking Points Memo for verification.

I am stating the obverse: Some information gathered through torture may, in fact, have held value. I do not disagree that the same information might have been elicited in other ways.

Fair enough. If Cheney may, in some small or indirect way, be telling the truth, then he needs to put up or shut up. You're giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who's been proven to be liar multiple times in the past.

Some information gathered through torture may, in fact, have held value.

You can get some good advice from your local fortune-teller, but that doesn't mean that the CIA should issue Tarot decks to all its analysts.

He had stated in a televised interview that he made the request to the CIA. He had, in fact, made the request of the National Archives.

Okay, then I'll concede that he lied about to whom he made the formal request. That's not even close to the worst he's told though.

I'm saying nothing of the sort. What I'm saying is that it's a mistake to jump from "What we learned from KSM didn't stop the LA plot" all the way to "We never learned anything of value from KSM". That's what doesn't make any sense.

Again, this is the problem with your argument: by saying we got valuable information from KSM through torture, you're closing off the fact that we could have gotten that same information, and probably more, by not torturing him.

Since you're making a utilitarian argument -- yes, torture is bad, but we did get something from it -- then I don't see why you're rejecting the utilitarian counter-argument that we could have gotten the same information by not torturing.

The argument is not that we got absolutely nothing of value by torturing KSM. The argument is that we got less information by torturing him than we would have through conventional interrogation. Again, if we're arguing in favor of utilitarianism, the fact that we managed to get a small amount of true information through torture must be weighed against the fact that we almost certainly could have gotten more and better information without torture.

Fair enough. If Cheney may, in some small or indirect way, be telling the truth, then he needs to put up or shut up. You're giving the benefit of the doubt to someone who's been proven to be liar multiple times in the past.

I'm giving no benefits to anyone. I'm only pointing out that Greg Sargent, among others, draws a conclusion based on insufficient evidence. The facts, as presented, leave open the possibility that Mr. Mueller and Mr. Cheney are both be telling the truth.

Mr. Cheney did not lie about his "formal request." He had stated in a televised interview that he made the request to the CIA. He had, in fact, made the request of the National Archives.

Given that the National Archives is not, in fact, the CIA, the claim would appear to be a lie even in your presentation, so I fail to see the justification for your claim that he did not lie about this issue.

by saying we got valuable information from KSM through torture, you're closing off the fact that we could have gotten that same information, and probably more, by not torturing him.

I'm not "closing off the fact." It's entirely possible that the same information could have been gained from KSM another way. It's also possible that the same information could have been gained from another source altogether.
Neither possibility means that information actually gained from interrogating KSM was without value.

Since you're making a utilitarian argument Nope, I'm not. I make no argument at all about what methods should have been used to interrogate KSM.

The argument is not that we got absolutely nothing of value by torturing KSM.

Actually, that is that argument some people are making. Maybe not you. But that conclusion lies at the heart of Mr. Sargent's assertion that Mr. Mueller's statement "stands in direct contrast to Dick Cheney's recent claim that torture has been 'enormously valuable' in terms of 'preventing another mass-casualty attack against the United States.'"

Given that the National Archives is not, in fact, the CIA, the claim would appear to be a lie even in your presentation,

Really? Need we explore other, quite obvious possibilities? I expect not, as any other explanation fails to sustain the preferred narrative.

But that conclusion lies at the heart of Mr. Sargent's assertion that Mr. Mueller's statement "stands in direct contrast to Dick Cheney's recent claim that torture has been 'enormously valuable' in terms of 'preventing another mass-casualty attack against the United States.'"

I guess that's the basic dispute here: was the information that KSM gave under torture "enormously valuable" or not? You seem to think that Cheney is correct and that the information was not just kind of useful, but "enormously valuable."

I'm arguing that it was not enormously valuable, that it was a small amount of accurate information wrapped in a giant blanket of completely useless information and that we had to spend months figuring out which pieces were actually accurate and valuable and which pieces were completely useless. Months that could have been spent examining actually valuable information.

That's the argument that the former FBI agent that Steve references made:

And speaking of the FBI, torture, and things that don't work, Ali Soufan, a former FBI supervisory special agent, has an op-ed in the NYT today, explaining that he interrogated Abu Zubaydah and acquired "important actionable intelligence" before the torture began. Zubaydah kept talking, but none of the revelations were so unique they "couldn't have been gained from regular tactics." (my emphasis)

So, are you saying that you believe Dick Cheney and that the information we got from KSM was "enormously valuable" and could not have been gotten by other means?

So, are you saying that you believe Dick Cheney and that the information we got from KSM was "enormously valuable" and could not have been gotten by other means?

If I answer this once again, will you stop asking? See my post at 1:43, above.

You seem to think that Cheney is correct and that the information was not just kind of useful, but "enormously valuable."

Contrary to how it might "seem," I do not think that. I have no way of knowing.

What I think is that Mr. Mueller's statement does not "stand[...] in direct contrast to Dick Cheney's recent claim" and Mr. Sargent makes a logically unsupportable assertion when he says so.

Really, it's not very hard to read the two statements and see ample opportunity for both to be correct.

What I think is that Mr. Mueller's statement does not "stand[...] in direct contrast to Dick Cheney's recent claim" and Mr. Sargent makes a logically unsupportable assertion when he says so.

Dick Cheney said that torture has been enormously valuable in preventing another mass-casualty attack. Mueller disagrees.

Cheney is not making an argument that we might sometimes get some valuable information through torture. He's specifically claiming that another 9/11 was prevented through torture.

Please present your evidence that Cheney is correct that torture prevented another mass casualty attack and Mueller is wrong. Again, the Library Tower attack was prevented before KSM was tortured, so that can't be used as proof that a mass-casualty attack was prevented by torturing KSM, unless we start getting into time-travel arguments again.

Please present your evidence that Cheney is correct that torture prevented another mass casualty attack and Mueller is wrong.

I have no evidence of either proposition. Why do you keep assuming that either is my postion?

Again, the Library Tower attack was prevented before KSM was tortured, so that can't be used as proof that a mass-casualty attack was prevented by torturing KSM,

Correct. I believe that was among the points I made in my initial post. At the time, you replied that it "made no sense."

I recommend the New York Times story Steve links in the second paragraph of this post. I believe the author does a good job of illuminating the story.

I have no evidence of either proposition. Why do you keep assuming that either is my postion?

Because I can't figure out what the hell your position is. Your argument seems to be that Cheney is correct that torture prevented another 9/11, so therefore Greg Sargent is misrepresenting Robert Mueller's assertion that Cheney is incorrect. I'm not sure what other falseness you can find in Sargent reporting that Mueller says that Cheney is wrong and that torture did not prevent another 9/11.

What falseness are you seeing in Mueller's statement that torture did not prevent another mass casualty attack?

Mueller is still FBI Director. On whether torture works, it's well known that torture was usually used to get false confessions starting from Inquisition.

Because I can't figure out what the hell your position is. Your argument seems to be...

Well I think I see the problem right there. I'm trying to be as declarative as possible. You keep trying to parse out what my position "seems to be."

OK, I hate to take up too much space with one comment, so excuse me if I don't provide too much detail. For starters, Greg weasels a little bit with his quote of Cheney. Here's the relevant portion of the transcript of the Cheney interview with Hannity on Monday:

We also, in the aftermath of 9/11, within a very short period of time, were faced with the anthrax attacks. What we didn't know about Al Qaeda was that they were trying to acquire nuclear weapons. So we had serious concerns, if I could put it like that.

In short order, we were faced with the possibility of the AQ Khan network, the black market selling of nuclear weapons technology, the enrichment facilities, the feedstock and weapons design by AQ Khan out of Pakistan for the Libyans, the Iranians and the North Koreans.

And obviously, one of the questions that would come up then is, AQ Khan, in Pakistan, with this technology and capability dealing with Osama bin Laden. He may be in Pakistan, too.

All those kinds of issues meant we had to collect good, first-rate intelligence about what was going on so we could prepare and defend against it. And that's what we did.

We — with the intelligence programs, the terror surveillance program, as well as the interrogation program, we set out to collect that kind of intelligence. It worked. It's been enormously valuable in terms of saving lives, preventing another mass casualty attack against the United States.

When Sargent relates it:

That stands in direct contrast to Dick Cheney's recent claim that torture has been "enormously valuable" in terms of "preventing another mass-casualty attack against the United States."

Sargent erases Cheney's mention of surveillance and makes his statement entirely into an endorsement of torture.

Look, Mueller and Cheney were asked very different questions. They gave answers that seem to contradict each other--but only if you present them very carefully in a way to make it look that way.

Mr. Mueller was asked by Vanity Fair if enhanced interrogation ever produced information that thwarted an attack. Mueller said it had never happened. That Jack Bauer fantasy that right-wingers are so fond of never took place.

Mr. Cheney was asked a much broader question about the interrogation program and other aspects of the Bush administration approach to the so-called "War on Terror." He insisted that their policies, taken as a whole, were responsible for "preventing another mass-casualty attack."

So bottom line, you can't puzzle out what my position is? Then don't guess at what it "seems" to be. Read the words in front of you: I don't think progressives benefit from simplifying the facts, as Greg Sargent has done, in the service of telling preferred tales.

You saw the reaction that followed from some commenters upon reading the suggestion that perhaps each and every syllable that slips from Mr. Cheney's lips may not actually be a damnable lie. If we really want to engage a rational discussion of national policy, we might wish to avoid putting our cherished tales of villainy aside first.

This is more than a little silly about something obvious -- and cruel.

We don't elect Presidents (or Vice Presidents) because they're skilled interrogators. Hell, we don't even hire 'em cuz they're good legislators -- that's one reason why Senators rarely become President. (We tend to elect Governors.)

The basic job skill for a President is to know what you don't know -- and go find people who can tell you what it is, so you can make good decisions based on facts and skills that you don't have.

That's where these guys screwed up spectacularly. Which has more experience successfully interrogating bad guys and breaking up plots, the FBI or the CIA?

This shouldn't have been a tough call for a competent President, regardless of how much pressure they were under (like, say, the pressure you might feel if somebody interrupted your vacation to tell you that terrorists were determined to strike in the US).

Presidents are SUPPOSED to hear disagreements among major players, like the FBI and the CIA, or the State Department and DoD, and then make decisions based on the facts, and on which side has expert skills on whatever the dispute is about.

Interrogating suspects? What the law allows?

Choosing the CIA over the FBI, and John Yoo over, well, anybody, pretty much clinches the case: they didn't want experts. These clowns literally didn't want to know what works.

Cuz that's the first thing the experts would have told 'em -- DID tell 'em, in fact, is that these methods don't work.

"Doesn't work" doesn't mean that among the screams and the choking and whatever the Arabic or Dari is for "fuck you", you don't get a lot of "information". The point is that it's not GOOD information, even when it's accurate -- there's literally way too much noise.

Torture doesn't work -- AND it's morally wrong as well as illegal.

"Cherished tales of villainy", me eye: I wasn't sure after Iraq and Katrina that it was possible to come up with better proof of Bush's incompetence, but torturing these guys really does top even disbanding the Iraqi Army and "helluva job, Brownie".

Here's the problem, Quaker, from Cheney's own words:

"We — with the intelligence programs, the terror surveillance program, as well as the interrogation program, we set out to collect that kind of intelligence. It worked."

Cheney is not listing the "interrogation" program in among the others arbitrarily. He's listing it as part of a claim that it was a program that "worked" equally as well as the other ones worked. He's deliberately linking the torture programs to the other ones that did actually have value to try and make it look as though the torture program had value.

He's not making an overall claim that we had several programs that worked and Sargent cherry-picked the "interrogations" part. Cheney's claiming that because the other programs worked, that proves that the torture program worked, too. To me, that makes Sargent's interpretation perfectly logical since Cheney was defending the torture program by trying to claim it had the same effect as the other programs of preventing another terrorist attack.

He's not making an overall claim that we had several programs that worked and Sargent cherry-picked the "interrogations" part.

Well, right there is where we disagree. Cheney says, in uncomplicated language, that there were several programs that worked. Sargent didn't mention that. Instead, he turned only quoted Cheney on interrogation and substituted his own word--torture--for what Cheney actually said.

Cheney's claiming that because the other programs worked, that proves that the torture program worked, too.

I don't see that.

Nevertheless, I agree that Mr. Cheney serves himself by framing debate in terms of whether the interrogations worked rather than whether they were legal or moral. If he succeeds, he puts his critics in the position of having to prove a negative.

BTW, a later post from Sargent that Steve linked in the daily mini-report lays out his argument more accurately. It's entirely possible to notice Mr. Cheney's changing the subject without engaging in sloppy reasoning.

Oh, give Cheney credit: he's claiming that waterboarding got good information. It's a testable proposition.

He's wrong.