Stuart Taylor, "Centrist": Torture Saved Lives

Stuart Taylor, professional right wing shill masquerading as a "centrist," says:

[T]here is a body of evidence suggesting that brutal interrogation methods may indeed have saved lives, perhaps a great many lives -- and that renouncing those methods may someday end up costing many, many more.

Of course Taylor is lying. And when I say he is lying, I mean he is telling a deliberate falsehood. But he has been doing that for a long time. Here's the trouble - Obama Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has told the same lie. What do we do about Blair?

Speaking for me only

< Torture Accountability Options | 5th Anniversary of Release of Abu Ghraib Photos >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What do we do about Blair? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kempis on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 10:29:38 AM EST
    We probably excuse him as much as possible since he's a buddy of the hippest, coolest, most telegenic president evah.

    I suppose that was the "genius" (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 10:39:58 AM EST
    of some of Obama's nominations: he had to know that (1) Dems with serious reservations were not likely to want to embarrass the president by rejecting his nominees, and (2) even if they gave token pushback, he knew he could count on the "problem" nominees being acceptable to enough of the Blue Dog-types and the GOP.  It was heads-I-win, tails-you-lose strategy.

    Withdrawing Brennan was a bone meant to placate - too bad Obama found a way to bring him in the back door.  Really too bad the deal wasn't "no Brennan, nowhere in government. Period."

    What disturbs me is that if, for example, Blair were to go, who would replace him?  I am convinced that Obama believes in the Blair/Brennan-types, and he would find someone else in that mold because that's what he's comfortable with.

    I'm thinking Obama silently agreed with (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 10:44:38 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton's challenge in the primaries--am I ready on Day One?  Better surround myself with at least some people who have insider knowledge on how the Bush admins. operated national security-wise.

    ok, i'll bite: prove it. (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 12:30:56 PM EST
    mr. taylor, among many others, have asserted that the use of torture did save lives. yet, nowhere have i seen any tangible evidence produced to support these claims. mr. blair himself just recently said the very same thing, but qualified it by noting there was no evidence to show that regular interrogation methods wouldn't have produced the same information.

    so, prove it. what "planned terrorist attacks" were thwarted, as the consequence of data secured through torture? at this point, certainly some of the very earliest bits can be released, without compromising our entire intellgence gathering mission.

    There is NO PROOF (none / 0) (#18)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 05:24:25 PM EST
    The CIA itself has said so.

    Take that you (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 10:19:48 AM EST
    George W. Bush-hating avengers

    What body of evidence? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 02:37:52 PM EST
    Where's the body?

    The LA downtown library tower? (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 02:42:30 PM EST
    That is the terrorist attack purportedly alloegedly averted due to harsh interrogation techniques.  

    The claim has been proven false (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 03:03:18 PM EST
    Honestly, I have "heard" about (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 03:12:03 PM EST
    the claim and I have "heard" that it is a false claim but I had no linkage. Like all good bullhonk that liars like to put out linkage always seems to be in short supply until the MSM decides to be real journalists.  Anyhow, I went looking for some decent linkage and this is what I came up with for now.

    Doyle McManus (LAT) says it is (none / 0) (#13)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 03:58:15 PM EST

    Body of Lies (none / 0) (#17)
    by NMvoiceofreason on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 05:20:34 PM EST
    There is NO PROOF that torture provided a SINGLE piece of actionable intelligence (CIA official: No proof). The torture was used to seek proof of an Iraq-al Qaida link.

    The Senate has documented this and other dimensions of the abuse, but still feel "no blood, no foul".


    Blair (none / 0) (#7)
    by seagoon on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 02:41:52 PM EST
    I think Blair's comment is being overblown.  He didn't say what Taylor said.  He said this: "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization that was attacking this country"

    I don't read that as a claim that attacks were thwarted or that lives were saved.  I read that as a claim that the "high value information" was all or mostly background.  A "deeper understanding" could justly be described as "high value", but it is decidedly not what those pushing for torture claimed that torture was needed to provide.

    Let's not forget, this was a memo to CIA staff, and so we can expect that he would not directly attack the people who work for him.  Given that, I read the statement as the most positive spin possible to put on the facts -- and presumably he is in a position to know if somebody gave up information that thwarted an attack as a result of being tortured.

    I find another of his statements revealing, too -- the one that "I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given."  Since we know that interrogators frequently exceeded even the wide latitude that the torture memos allowed them, this looks to me like a statement that he would not oppose prosecutions of those who didn't keep to the letter of the memos.

    Nonsense (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 03:02:36 PM EST
    I am sick an d tired of this game people play. Blair said it yielded "high value information" and that he does not find fault with the policy and the people whop made the torture policy.

    Stop the BS please.


    Carl Levin calls for DOJ to (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 02:43:43 PM EST
    select three people (federal judges?) to investigate.  See AP.  

    What sayeth Dershowitz? (none / 0) (#14)
    by RonK Seattle on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 10:39:10 PM EST

    He is apparently at the UN conference (none / 0) (#15)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 26, 2009 at 11:20:48 PM EST
    in Durban.  Saying inflammatory stuff about Iran.

    My observations agree with yours (none / 0) (#16)
    by joze46 on Mon Apr 27, 2009 at 03:19:59 PM EST
    For years, and my opinion, this guy Stuart Taylor has as you have suggested lied if not stretched the truth. My observations agree with yours but with more of a sad, sad realization that men like this are just polished "Rush Limbaugh Types". These are the pirates of hate radio or hate cable news casters.

    Taylor has or is a professional contextual twister for bounty. Just as America has witnessed pirates in open waters, some Journalist operates with the same similarly under the Constitution behind the first amendment plus the shield of resource protection.  Freedom of Speech used for personal ambitions such as this is bad karma which will eventually surface to reveal their character embarrasses and destroy themselves. Limbaugh and Hannity are slow beginning to realize this.  

    But on a lower profile with characters like George Will, Pat Buchanan, and a ton of hate radio regulars, I would say that Sean Hannity ranks with Cavuto, Dobbs, Wolf, O'Reilly, Mathews and a host of magazine editors and news paper columnist as polished types. My theory on the real reason the rags are going out of business is the electorate public has caught on to bias the lies and dirt that has been dumped into the public arena. These entities are very embarrassed rather would go out of business than tell the truth.

    Here is the deal to consider, if actions and pressures did engage President George Bush, or Vice President Cheney or anyone else they may very well break down in public to admit to cover ups and lies in the decisions of the war and prisoner torture. The reason some of the convictions should include should be banishment to see how these characters would be accepted into the International community. That is an intellectual torture thought that might frighten the hell all of them that fear of the world organization might be worse. Remember bush never traveled, likely for very good reason, he probably was not liked before he became president.

    Something the entire Republican Party could not endure is an open investigation the Bush family could reveal tons of complicity with the Arabs that could fuel treason, a very difficult situation for Americans.  Of course plea bargains could be made to wave banishment in return for the real truth. That would end the Republican rant as we know it. Rather than destroy the party it would likely clean it out to grow stronger as a new party that could compete and perhaps do better than these Democrats. As that saying goes take advantage of a travesty to turn it into a blessing.    

    This only my opinion...