Non-Responsive
The details are changing about the raid that killed Bin Laden. Not too surprising. Early reports are usually full of mistakes. In fact, there are a lot of things about the mission we may never know, not only because some of it may be classified, but because it'll mostly be based on faulty human memory.
What's annoying, however, was Press Secretary Jay Carney's mealy-mouthed response when asked about the value of information obtained by enhanced interrogation techniques. He notes Obama still opposes the techniques, but also
The fact is that no single piece of information led to the successful mission that occurred on Sunday. [Multiple detainees provided insights and those insights were] just a slice of information [used to get Bin Laden. It's] simply strange...to suggest a piece of information that may or may not have been gathered eight years ago somehow led to a successful mission on Sunday.
This is a man straining to avoid answering a simple question. Yes, we know it wasn't simply a case of someone coughing up Bin Laden's whereabouts. But can you tell us if the information obtained through enhanced interrogation techniques was a) central b) significant c) helpful d) unimportant or e) irrelevant in finding Bin Laden?
This is the free ride those who oppose enhanced interrogation techniques (and torture--not quite the same thing) wish to enjoy. They claim these techniques don't work. Fine, so you're not arguing about a principle, and if we can show it works (as part of a wider arsenal, and in extremely limited circumstances), then you'd be okay with it. If this is the case, we should definitely look very closely at what these techniques got us, and maybe you'll have to change your mind.
But if you are arguing on principle (even if you think it also doesn't work), then you've got to bite the bullet and say no matter how much (or how little) the information we obtained helped us, it's the wrong thing to do. It may mean that a 9/11 tragedy will happen again if we refuse to consider the option under any circumstance, but that's a chance you're willing to take.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:22 AM
4 Comments:
Talk about mealy-mouthed- lets stop using phony corporate words like "enhanced interrogatoion techniques" and call torture, "torture"
The phony corporate word is "cubicle."
This is a phony government word. Sorry if you choke on that.
But, the real point is, there is a difference between torture and things that make you uncomfortable. There is damn little in criminal prosecution and certainly in war with which any normal person with no experience would find comfortable.
Here's what I'd like to know, Anonymous: Are you proud of President Obama or do you want him tried as a war criminal? NPR is falling all over itself this morning about how wonderful this is for Democrats, to finally be tough guys.
Obviously they got important information from the harsh interrogations. The NYTimes has quoted multiple sources confirming it. But from what I've read, one detainee who was subjected to harsh interrogation gave up the truth about the importance of the courier under such interrogations, while another detainee subjected to harsh interrogation continued to deny the importance of the courier. These two conflicting results were taken as evidence of the courier's importance. Not sure how you can decide whether you would have gotten the same conflicting-but-somehow-reinforcing evidence with "standard" interrogations.
There will always be disagreement as to what is torture and what is interrogation. But the information itself is neither bad nor good, and the fact that information wrongly obtained results in something good is not something I think the administration should have to defend. The fact that doing something bad can yield good results isn't really in dispute.
Of course, the problem here is that the administration wants to deny that their is a sliding scale, and also that there is a cost benefit analysis. They fear the majority of people will not make the same analysis that they wish to make. I've always thought the simple statement that torture does not provide useful intelligence is ludicrous. It's like the people who say the death penalty is not a deterrent. The question is the balance - how much deterrence, and how much intelligence, versus the the negatives of proposed actions.
Post a Comment
<< Home