CIA IG: Cheney And Obama DNI Blair Wrong, No High Value Information From Torture

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:21:26 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

While most people will focus on Dick Cheney being proven wrong, again, my concern is with the guy in office now, Obama Administration Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, who strangely (or not so strangely) gets a pass from the Left blogs (see Greg Sargent, Steve Benen and Media Matters on the subject) for his statements about the effectiveness (and, in the "dark days after 9/11," as opposed to the "lear days of April 2009," the understandability of ordering torture - who could "find fault" for what was done then asks Blair) Imagine if Jane Harman had said what Blair said? They'd be hanging her from a sour apple tree. In any event, both Dennis Blair and Dick Cheney are proven wrong (and Jane Harman right) by this report:

The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.

Cheney will continue to lie about this. Will Dennis Blair? Will anyone on the Left ask about what Dennis Blair thinks of this?

Speaking for me only

< U.S. Military May Send Troops to Fight Drug War in Mexico | Porter Goss' Campaign Against Harman And Pelosi: It's About Torture >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

CIA IG: Cheney And Obama DNI Blair Wrong, No High Value Information From Torture | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

It doesn't matter (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by eric on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:35:42 AM EST

if you were able to extract the formula for turning lead into gold, torture is never justified and is always wrong. Discussing the effectiveness of it is disgusting.

I have a feeling that when the (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Anne on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 10:38:33 AM EST

pictures come out at the end of May, a lot of people who haven't bothered to get the full impact of reading about people engaged in drawing up plans and evaluating techniques and dreaming up legal justifications for torture, or haven't read the memos themselves, may find themselves coming to the same conclusion - that it doesn't matter whether it works or how well it works - it's just wrong.

It still boggles my mind that people have forgotten Abu Ghraib, where inhumane treatment engaged in for sport grew out of the culture and atmosphere that produced interrogation-by-torture; that's what happens when you make something acceptable - people use it for their own twisted reasons, and always have justification for it.

I think the pictures are going to bring all of that back - and it should - but maybe this time, we can deal with all of it the way we should have then.


My fear is that (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by BackFromOhio on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 12:11:51 PM EST

the society in which school yard bullying has become a part of life, where ratting out others and competing with them by any means possible for all to see on reality TV, where the media and others get a pass when they hurt people or groups by reinforcing stereotypes, making up facts or ignoring contrary ones is a society where torture justified on the chance it might protect one of "us" has become a value too many subscribe to.


: Obama's press secretary says the (none / 0) (#8)
by oculus on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 12:17:09 PM EST

press is doing a heck of a job.

We now have a clear and evidenced report (none / 0) (#6)
by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 10:49:02 AM EST

of a direct line of policy creation concerning the military use of torture that went from the White House to the current front lines. The photos are the extreme detailed visual cortex evidence that the military in general was torturing. No more bad apples now! Someone's in trouble. Someone grander than Lindy England. I wonder who though? Ollie is doing civilian talk shows darn it.


Will anyone on the left ask why (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by Anne on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:36:55 AM EST

Dennis Blair's position seems to be A-OK with Obama, or muse about why Obama chose Blair, and why he - Obama - has such an affinity for the likes of John Brennan?

I wish I could get over the awful feeling I have that this president's ears are being whispered into just like the last one's were, and just like the last one, he's listening - and doesn't seem to have a problem with what he's hearing.

It would be nice to have people in the administration who can see what's right and what's wrong no matter whether we are having a dark day or a clear one, wouldn't it?

: Or ask why (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by KeysDan on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:54:25 AM EST

Democratic majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, has expressed support for 'good man' and fellow Mormon, Judge Jay Bybee?

: many, many have, (none / 0) (#11)
by cpinva on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 01:47:11 PM EST

Will anyone on the left ask why
Dennis Blair's position seems to be A-OK with Obama, or muse about why Obama chose Blair, and why he - Obama - has such an affinity for the likes of John Brennan?
who haven't been blinded by the bright light surrounding the annointed one. BTD was an early and vocal critic of mr. blair's appointment. clearly, word didn't make it to the wh.

Effective at what? (5.00 / 2) (#14)
by lambert on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 02:14:17 PM EST

As a tool for getting intelligence, not effective.

As a tool to get people to say whatever the policy makers want, very effective.

Will Cheney's daughter continue to lie about this? (none / 0) (#1)
by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 09:23:29 AM EST

It was very sad watching that happening

I would find it sadder if I didn't think (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by Anne on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 02:44:07 PM EST

she shared her father's ideology and continues to be a vocal proponent.

The Cheneys are one family where I can't say the standard thing of "while I don't agree with their opinions or share their political philosophy, they are probably nice people" - I don't think they are nice people. Nice people don't defend torture or many other things that have been visited on us as a result of Cheney influence and participation.


: They are not nice people. (none / 0) (#20)
by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:31:54 PM EST

You are right on target here. Lynn is as bad as her parents are and she's been groomed to take over when they retire.

Sad? (none / 0) (#10)
by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 01:12:03 PM EST

Apples rarely fall far from the tree.

She's in the family business.

How could she not be? There's way too much to be gained by sticking with her parents.


I'd like to think (none / 0) (#17)
by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 02:26:36 PM EST

that somehow she doesn't have to live that false, that buried alive in filth. It's a haunting interview for me. I sense she wants to protect her father but why does he need her "protection" if everything he did was a-okay.


She wants to protect her father (5.00 / 1) (#19)
by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:30:14 PM EST

because she's a part of the family business.

The Cheneys came to this town to conquer it and to destroy our government. They made that clear. She is just the next generation of the conquerors. Daddy gave her a job at the State Department. She married the right kind of guy. They've got kids that are being groomed. She is going to keep the family in business in this town. She is as pernicious as her father and mother and you really shouldn't feel sorry for her. She will inherit a multi-million or billion dollar fortune made from your tax dollars and her family's corrupt involvement in our government.


You are probably right (none / 0) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:48:49 PM EST

I just can't imagine how cold that person who gave that interview is inside. My husband has always said I have a hard understanding that Ted Bundy was really out there and that if we all would have loved him a little more everything would not have been fine.


: Given her pedigree - (none / 0) (#22)
by inclusiveheart on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 04:55:56 PM EST

getting malevolence and misanthropy from both sides - mother and father - she'd have to be adopted to even have a chance at not being as cold and calculating as her parents.

i think she has to, (none / 0) (#12)
by cpinva on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 01:50:07 PM EST

Will Cheney's daughter continue to lie about this?

otherwise her head would explode. it would be like finding out your father was a guard at dachau; not your fault obviously, but you still have to live with that.

so you deny it, even in the face of concrete evidence.


: That's what I thought too (none / 0) (#15)
by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 02:20:21 PM EST

We all have to reconcile some issues we get to have about our family origins. It almost hurts ME to watch her go through that interview. Her voice, it is layered and layered and layered in veneers to the point that it almost has no inflection. There must be lots and lots of layers to being a Cheney and surviving being a Cheney.

People will break... (none / 0) (#9)
by Rojas on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 01:01:20 PM EST

I think it delusional to say it's not effective.
That does not mean it should be policy and certainly does not mean it's the most effective policy. DDT was effective. We banned it decades ago.

: breaking, and being effective, (none / 0) (#13)
by cpinva on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 01:57:02 PM EST

People will break...
I think it delusional to say it's not effective.

are not, by definition, mutually inclusive. i can torture you, until you tell me what i want to know. that what you tell me is false is not, by my definition, effective.
people were tortured until they admitted to being witches, and having performed all kinds of magical acts. that's what the inquisitors wanted to hear. it was all false of course, so i don't qualify that as effective either.
expending scarce, allocable resources, running around like henny penny, based on the admissions of someone who was tortured for them, doesn't strike me as being particularly effective either.

If memory serves. .. (none / 0) (#16)
by atlanta lawyer on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 02:23:11 PM EST

I can't find the quote online, but

I recall Blair as saying that the "techniques" led to "high value information",or maybe even that the person's interrogated by the techniques led to high value information. I remember thinking that he fell short of saying that torture saved lives. I've started reading between the lines.

I'm not arguing that absolves him, or that he's being completely forthcoming but I'm not sure that he outright lied.

I used to view as shrill anyone who assumed the worst all the time about the politicians they disagree with were shrill. With Bush, it seems like if you jump the gun and assume the worse, it later turns out to be true.

In the end,I think we'll find

Bush authorized the torture.
It certainly didn't save any lives.
It didn't provide any useful information whatsoever.
They didn't even do it to try to save lives, but only to establish/fabricate a link b/t AQ and Iraq.

What a worthless statement (none / 0) (#23)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Apr 25, 2009 at 11:30:00 PM EST

No conclusive proof? There is no "conclusive proof" that OJ is a double murderer either. By setting conclusive proof as a standard it allows any and all evidence to the contrary to be ignored because whatever it is it can be asserted that it does not rise to the level of "conclusive proof."

No thwarted "specific imminent attacks?" This invites the inference that attacks were thwarted before they became imminent. Which, BTW, is even better. It also completely ignores all intel that dealt with AQ vulnerabilities.