The lack of concern by the press, politicians, and according to some polls, the american people, about torture is deafening and depressing.

To repeat myself from the other day, I can't believe we are even having this discussion in 2009.  I really can't believe we are LOSING this discussion in 2009.  It makes me want to scream/cry.

Still, it seems likely that the interrogations, among other things, including surveillance, helped us prevent further terrorist attacks.

Even if you ignore the fact that Meachum seems to have no issue with war crimes, it's hard to debate torture as a "policy difference" when based on no evidence whatsoever, people like Meachum say it worked.  

We are never, ever going to get away from torture if these fools have anything to do with it.

A third way would be a 9/11-style bipartisan commission that would include clear supporters of the Bush administration. Such a panel would meet largely in private, have the power to grant immunity to witnesses and be charged with answering, as clearly as possible, the central question of whether Bush's war on terror in its entirety saved lives.

It's pretty bad when private and consensual sexual acts between two consenting adults are more shocking to the conscience than a policy of torture that involved people at the highest levels of government and was developed and implemented with the help of even more people in the government, assisted by elected representatives, and was built on a body of lies that continues to grow in magnitude and effect.

But, part of the problem is articles like the one that appeared in the WaPo yesterday:

A 2005 memo by the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel said that Mohammed and Abu Zubaida, the nom de guerre of Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, an al-Qaeda associate who was also subjected to coercive interrogation, have been "pivotal sources because of their ability and willingness to provide their analysis and speculation about the capabilities, methodologies and mindsets of terrorists."

Counterterrorism officials also said the two men and other captured suspects provided critical information about senior al-Qaeda figures and identified hundreds of al-Qaeda members, associates and financial backers.

The accumulation and triangulation of information also allowed officials to vet the intelligence they were receiving and to push other prisoners toward making full and frank statements.

Mohammed continued to be a valued source of information long after the coercive interrogation ended. Indeed, he has gone on to lecture CIA agents in a classroom-like setting, on topics from Greek philosophy to the structure of al-Qaeda, and wrote essays in response to questions, according to sources familiar with his time in detention.

Note the title of the article: Effectiveness of Harsh Questioning is Unclear.  

As long as torture is treated as a mere policy issue and the debate is framed in terms of effectiveness, a thinking person can grasp that as long as a compelling case can be made that torture is effective, not only will its use not send anyone to jail, but it will remain a viable option.  

And that, apparently, is the two-fer these people are going for: no punishment for those involved, and the option on the table for future presidents.

But not, apparently, when mass degradation and death are involved.

The underlying assumption of his argument is that, yes, Clinton's type of perseonal foibles are what you go after, but things of destructively public and national nature are simply too "they-were-just-doing-what-they-truly-thought-was-necessary-to-protect-the-nation" to appropriately investigate.

And if effectiveness is the only gauge, why even debate whether these techniques fit the definition of torture? The problem with using "it worked" as an argument is that it justifies too much. By that rationale, we can justify subjecting enemy captives to every form of torture ever devised. We can even justify torturing and killing their spouses, siblings, parents and children, right in front of them.

Cheney and others have yet to advocate going that far. But if they really believe what they say about the techniques we've used, here's a question they need to answer: Why not?

In its first filing on detention and torture under the Obama administration, the Department of Justice filed briefs in March urging the Court of Appeals to reject any constitutional or statutory rights for detainees. The Obama Justice Department further argued that even if such rights were recognized, the Court should rule that the previous administration's officials who ordered and approved torture and abuse of the plaintiffs should be immune from liability for their actions.

but can you not see a difference between rank and file soldiers in the field and someone who planned 9/11?

i can't. torture is torture, period, regardless of who it's done to, or what possible crime they may have committed. it's wrong and it's illegal, under multiple laws and treaties.

It is a war crime and a crime under US law to use these techniques on anyone.

except, congress hasn't actually declared war on anyone. since the appeals court determined that these detainees aren't "persons", there will be those arguing that they don't fall under any laws or treaty obligations.

what are known as enhanced interrogation tactics--or, in the popular vocabulary, as torture--

Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham, a person likely connected to hardwire corruption via MSNBC is as flip as Antonin Scalia connected to the Republican Party black rope gangsters. Here we have Meacham in the glamorous glitz of Morning Joe with today's funny news theater with news you can't use. Here Scalia now says in his great Juris prudence grandeur, what we do matters. Are you laughing yet? Then we know the Supreme Court gets to decide not to hear anything they don't want too. Did you crack a smile yet?  

Another wining duo this morning was Andrea Mitchell wife of former Federal Reserve board chairman Allen Greenspan. We have to admire Allen from avoiding blame for greatest atrocity ever created in a modern economy who for the last couple of decades built the horror of this incendiary economic trillion dollar mess. With Kerns Goodwin the historian likely given preference to secret actions of insider stuff to share with Andrea to write books receive prizes and give Goodwin reason for domestic violence or motivation to tinker twittle and twitter on the Internet. Yes their life is fun and easy, while our's is filled with resume writing, and the new studies in the good book of screwing up for the electorate in chapter 11.

All of us should at least join in concert and sing forever that Bush and company Cheney too at the minimum was a "POLITICAL KLUTZ". Personally the thing that always made me wonder was the simple correlation of the Neo-Con right in condemning homosexuality in its actions presumably by sexual anal intercourse that does not suggest real sex. Compared to water boarding when it is perpetrated by stuffing one with a wet rag over the mouth and nose spilling water all approaching what simulates drowning "IS OK" Sheesh. For me thinking in both these ideals is bizarre.

Federal prosecutors secured a 10-year sentence against the sheriff and four years in prison for the deputies. But that 1983 case - which would seem to be directly on point for a legal analysis on waterboarding two decades later - was never mentioned in the four Bush administration opinions released last week.

More...

We live in Peggy Noonan's neighborhood and hubby knows her well. She will now be shunned by us. We will walk by her and say out loud, "just keep walking."

All of these torture apologists should be shunned, no more invites to cool parties etc....

Religion has nothing to do with their politics and Jesus doens't care what they do as long as they are saved.

I really believe that followers of Christ CANNOT hold public office, if they were really following Christ's commandments. Not compatible.

I don't know anyone even talking about it in any real way, other than on this blog. Anyone at work who talks about it is just interested in as David Gregory calls it 'the politics of torture'. When the media insists on framing it that way, the sheeple follow.

I utterly agree this framing is making mud out of the torture crime (I chose the term "crime" carefully, as opposed to "debate" or "issue" or even "scandal"). If it's allowed to link to the orange place, however, McJoan had a superb diary up yesterday.

as long as it's the right citizens will anyone care?

don't you love these 'domino effect' arguments...

but really, what would stop the government, as long as it could say that the citizen is a 'terrorist'...
and we've already heard the argument from the past administration that anyone who uses drugs is a terrorist by inference (so probably not too far away from 'legalized' torture of drug users)...

but it would be okay, because of the type of person being tortured...(hell, the government already allows sodomy/rape in it's prisons...if that's not cruel and unusual I don't know what is