Hillary Does Not Support Torture

Update: TPM has the transcript.


Kevin Drum is angry over Hillary's comments on torture. I'm not. Hillary was very clear she opposed torture last year.

From her comments then:

The rule of law cannot be compromised. We must stand for the rule of law before the world, especially when we are under stress and under threat. We must show that we uphold our most profound values.

The bill before us allows the admission into evidence of statements derived through cruel, inhuman and degrading interrogation. That sets a dangerous precedent that will endanger our own men and women in uniform overseas. Will our enemies be less likely to surrender? Will informants be less likely to come forward? Will our soldiers be more likely to face torture if captured? Will the information we obtain be less reliable? These are the questions we should be asking. And based on what we know about warfare from listening to those who have fought for our country, the answers do not support this bill. As Lieutenant John F. Kimmons, the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence said, "No good intelligence is going to come from abusive interrogation practices."


This bill undermines the Geneva Conventions by allowing the President to issue Executive Orders to redefine what permissible interrogation techniques happen to be. Have we fallen so low as to debate how much torture we are willing to stomach? By allowing this Administration to further stretch the definition of what is and is not torture, we lower our moral standards to those whom we despise, undermine the values of our flag wherever it flies, put our troops in danger, and jeopardize our moral strength in a conflict that cannot be won simply with military might.

And here are Bill Clinton's comments on torture from the same time period.

< GAO Report on Teen Abuse at Boot Camps | Wednesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    no, the bottom line is (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cpinva on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 02:05:35 PM EST
    it was a stupid question right up front. she's stated her position on the issue, clearly. she's not been "waffling and flip-flopping" on it at all. how often does someone need to say no, before everyone else hears it? apparently, per greekesque, every hour.

    tell me, did she say it in a "shrill" or "cackling" voice?

    How is rhetorical opposition (none / 0) (#6)
    by Geekesque on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:30:41 PM EST
    to torture different than Bush's?

    Hard to tell about Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by janinsanfran on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 02:20:59 PM EST
    Unfortunately, after being lied to for six years, we no longer believe politicians who leave themselves the smallest wiggle room. Clinton wiggles on lots of stuff, including the absurd "ticking time bomb."  We have been painfully trained to disbelieve.

    At that timel, she wanted the authority to torture (none / 0) (#1)
    by Geekesque on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 01:20:06 PM EST

    That's quite emphatic, but in October, she had quite a loophole, and she explained it in depth to the Daily News, in response to a question from Publisher Mort Zuckerman. You can listen to it here. Or here.

    "Those are very rare, but if they occur, there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing it," she said, before expalining in detail that methods like bribery work better than torture. But she was willing to go for harsh methods in the ticking bomb scenario.

    "In those instances where we have sufficient basis to believe that there is something imminent, yeah, but then we've got to have a check and balance on that."

    Bottom line is that her waffling and flip-flopping on what should be a no-brainer means she has little credibliity.  

    Check the update (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 02:53:53 PM EST
    at the top, I linked to TPM's copy of the transcript .

    Hillary's torture (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 03:07:01 PM EST
    Doesn't matter to me (none / 0) (#7)
    by DA in LA on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 05:27:33 PM EST
    I'll never vote for her.

    pander bear (none / 0) (#8)
    by diogenes on Wed Oct 10, 2007 at 07:51:28 PM EST
    At any given time she says whatever will advance Hillary 2008.  As president she'll to everything to advance Hillary 2012.  Whatever you say about Bush and Blair's judgment, the fact is that they had gigantic popular majorities in the polls in 2002 after 9/11 and took a political risk in Iraq.  You won't see Hillary take a risk to herself until she's reelected in 2012, and that includes on Iraq, torture, etc.

    She should list off... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 11:54:20 AM EST
    ...every method she is aware of that she will immediately stop when elected.  Otherwise, she's just yapping and hedging.  She is trying to hard to be all things to all people.  Like her husband, like most bigtime pols, I fear, when you get right down to it, there is no THERE there.  Brilliant people, but so consumed with electoral acheivement that they have no time to be, simply, human beings who can sit under the tree and watch the elephant.