Okay, a second try: Hillary tries to "straddle" the torture issue.

[patcox2]

As posted in LBN:

"Senator Hillary Clinton has said that she supports legalizing the torture of a captured terror suspect who knows abut "an imminent threat to millions of Americans".

This, she said was an exception to her opposition to torture.

"That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law," she added."

So, Hillary, who voted for the war (war mongering) is now trying to perform the biggest straddle I have ever seen in my political life, trying to have it both ways on torture.

Its breathtaking, the arrogance of trying to straddle torture.

But then again, she's been trying to straddle on abortion, too.

Because she has absolutely no liberal principles whatsoever. And I hope that becomes clear before 08 so that she doesn't doom the country to 8 more years of republican rule by getting nominated by people who can't see her for what she is.

Her universal health care plan was privatized. She and Bill sold labor and the working people down the river. But she holds out a few token progressive issues and the progressives grovel for her. She is doing exactly what Bush does with his fundie base, adopt a few largely symbolic issues, make noise with them but never really get anywhere, meanwhile serve the interests of the corporations and millionaires who give her all that campaign cash.

How's that, is that acceptable?

[Temporary1]

1. It's up to us to stop her in the Primaries

NO MORE prowar Presidential candidates. The American people are with us this time, we don't need to appease the far right by fielding prowar people.

[wryter2000]

9. Welcome to DU

:hi:

[The Count]

48. Not anymore - anti-war candidate got about 100,000 votes in NY

And if you mean 2008 primaries, the media will fix those the same way they fixed the senate ones in NY, or the 2004 primaries - by ignoring the good and highlighting the bad candidates.

[Temporary1]

52. He had no airtime; the antiwar people will

this time around in the Primaries.

[bryant69]

2. I don't think she's quite as bad as all that

But certainly there's a gaping chasm between her actual record and national perception of her. Conservatives have spent two decades painting her as liberalism personified, while liberals can't help noticing how rarely she fights for liberal principles.

Which is exactly why her candidency would be a trainwreck.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Dhalgren]

19. Well said and, I think, absolutely right...

[rodeodance]

3. making abortions safe and rare is NOT straddling the issue-it is a

common sence stance.





...This, she said was an exception to her opposition to torture.

[Dhalgren]

7. But that is the problem. An "exception" to opposition to torture

means support for torture. There can be no exception for torture being illegal. Just as there can be no exception to homicide being illegal. If there are extenuating circumstances that impact upon the commission of the act, then let a judge and jury make that determination.

[hughee99]

28. Exception?

"Senator Hillary Clinton has said that she supports legalizing the torture of a captured terror suspect who knows abut "an imminent threat to millions of Americans".

Since "imminent threat" is a nice vague little phrase, and since you don't know WHAT THE HELL the captured terror suspect knows, you'll never know FOR SURE beforehand if torture is allowed. This being the case, the decision will probably be based on what someone doing the torturing THINKS the terror suspect MIGHT know. In one case, you can only find out afterwords whether torture was justified, in the other, the torture is justified based on the beliefs of the one doing the torturing. No matter how you parse this, it's an idiotic position.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Ok already, we know "triangulation" is her middle name

[CoffeeCat]

5. Behind the scenes...

...Hillary votes for bills and legislation that are concurrent with the BushCo agenda.

In front of the scenes--she talks as if she is against these things.

In my book, these games are just as bad--if not worse--than the PNAC agenda. At least the PNACers are open about their agenda. I don't know what Hillary is playing at. She says one thing and does another.

She can talk all she wants---at the end of the day, she's voted for what Bush has wanted. Furthermore, she had an opportunity to denounce her Iraq vote--when Kerry, Kennedy and others did. She did not.

[Individualist]

13. She's being a good DLCer

I agree with you; as I've said before, the only thing worse than a neocon is a neocon enabler.

[jobycom]

6. Why do you have a problem with that?

You have a terrorist you know has specific details of a plot that will kill millions, and you aren't going to do whatever it takes to get that info from him? What candidate do you think would agree with that?

As for the rest of your Rovean hit piece, I've never heard her waffle on choice, the Clintons tried to get a health care plan that had some hope of passing passed, and Hillary made it clear, unlike Kerry and Edwards, that her vote for the IWR was a vote to try to prevent war, not to allow it. I have more respect for those few who voted against the IWR, but to call her a war monger is just slander.

[Dhalgren]

11. See post #7....

[jobycom]

20. Okay. So the answer is you don't have a problem with that.

Post 7 is saying the same thing Hillary is saying. End of story. Glad you came around.

[Dhalgren]

24. No (nice snarky try). There can be no excepts to the illegality of

torture. Torture should be against the law, period. If that is what Hil said, I guess I missed it...

[jobycom]

27. You just said there can be extenuating circumstances

that means in some cases it would be allowed. Same as she said. You say a judge and jury would decide that (as I've said around here often). Who else would decide that? She's for laying out guidelines, just as there are guidelines to determine when homocide is actually self-defense. Doesn't make murder legal, it simply helps people determine when there is an exception to the rule.

She's a liberal. I'm sick to death of all these swiftboat attacks on her. What happened today to cause all this? Did the marching orders come down?

[Dhalgren]

47. The exception that is being discussed is a before the fact

exception, not a defense of a chargeable criminal act. They are asking, is there a case where it would be legal BEFORE the act. And I am saying that she should have said (if she wanted to be consistent in her "opposition" to torture) that all torture should be illegal, period. Just as all theft is illegal, even if some judges and juries will fine "not guilty" for some thefts in some circumstances. Some torture scenarios may have circumstantial defenses, but that should not make them "legal".

I am not pro or con Clinton. I will comment on posts as I see fit. Implying that I am in league with some sort of "Swift-boating" crew or that I can be "called out" by them is totally unworthy of you and doesn't put you in the best of lights...

Peace

[Stephanie]

8. link please

this is no surprise. she wants to have it both ways on every single issue. she has no moral compass, no intrinsic values, she's just an insincere powermonger. thanks for the post, you said it perfectly.

[leftchick]

12. link

http://www.newkerala.com/news4.php?action=fullnews&id=36550

[Stephanie]

15. thanks - here's the Daily News link

http://www.nydailynews.com/05-01-2006/news/col/bensmith/story/462068p-388764c.html

McCain team mocks Hil torture loophole

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) said she supports legalizing the torture of a captured terror suspect who knows about "an imminent threat to millions of Americans" - making an exception to her opposition to torture and marking a key difference from her possible rival for the White House, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
"If we're going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law," Clinton said in a phone interview Friday, expanding on comments to the Daily News Editorial Board.

She said the "ticking time bomb" scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.

"In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable," she said.

"That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law." Clinton's stance comes days after a complex bill on the treatment of terror suspects became law, a compromise between McCain and President Bush.

McCain and some human rights groups said the bill bans cruelty to detainees. Clinton and other advocates said it gives the President the power to mistreat prisoners.

McCain's chief political aide, John Weaver, mocked Clinton's willingness to make an exception.

"I'm shocked Sen. Clinton would try to have it both ways," Weaver said in an e-mail.

A Human Rights Watch official, Tom Malinowski, said he was disappointed by her exception.

"Once you open the door to this sort of thing, you legitimize the practice," he said.

[leftchick]

21. thank you!

the last line says it all.

[Stephanie]

22. and here's R.J. Eskow's "what she should have said" answer >

Here's what Sen. Clinton should have said: Your scenario is fictional. Even if it were true, intelligence experts agree that information obtained through torture is usually bad. We would be more likely to spend the last few seconds before the bomb exploded looking in the wrong place. And once we torture, we become the people the terrorists want us to become, because it's good for their recruitment. Look at Iraq. That's what we've done there, and it's a failure. Lastly, and most important, if we lose sight of our ethics and values we become a nation in moral decline. We must never let that happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-immoral-moderates-h_b_31790.html

[BurtWorm]

32. That's not really what she said. McCain has no leg to stand on wrt torture

seeing as he caved and gave Bush the bill he wanted in the first place.

But Hillary, as muddy as she usually is on most issues involving war and national security, was not arguing for a loophole for torture. It's dishonest to claim she was. Her main point was about rule of law, not acceptability of torture: she said, essentially, there is no instance in which torture is acceptable (not even the ticking timebomb scenario she apparently believes might be acceptable) if it is not subject to legal review, checks and balances and due process.

[Canuckistanian]

41. That's it!

"Once you open the door to this sort of thing, you legitimize the practice," he said.

It's the foot in the door, the slippery slope.

And we're all familiar with Shrub's "interpretations" of existing laws.

IF torture was to be made legal, it's use should have to be spelled out in iron-clad, non-signing-statement-proof language.

Even then, it would be subject to abuse.

[BlooInBloo]

10. I don't know how people can say without laughing...

... that she doesn't support torture.

She clearly DOES support torture.

You're welcome to *justify* it all you want, but denying it seems asinine.

[leftchick]

14. it is not acceptable

she has turned into another lieberman.

[Stephanie]

16. She's worse than Lieberman

At least Lieberman is honest about being a Bush-loving Quisling.

[leftchick]

18. very true

Hillary is as disingenuous as them come. :grr:

[BurtWorm]

17. Clinton fell into a trap set for her.

Her position is (rightly) that there should be no blank check for handlers of detainees, that they must be subject to oversight (checks and balances, she calls it). And even in the one instance where she (and a lot of people) think torture may be justified (i.e., the "ticking time-bomb scenario," when a detainee is suspected of having knowledge pertaining to a known imminent attack), she said it would only be acceptable if there is a way to check the power that would have to be invested in the torturer (or dealer of "severity," in her terminology). In other words, her position is substantially different from Bush's and the Republicans', being rooted in the constitutional principles of checks and balances and rule of law.

But she allowed herself to fall into a trap the editorial board set for her by allowing herself to speculate on what might happen in the extremely rare (in real life, as opposed to movie scripts and airport stand novels) event of a "ticking time-bomb" scenario. She didn't need to yield a millimeter on the torture question. The time to discuss exceptions to the overriding principle against torture is not now, when the Bushists are forcing through the legalization of unconditional torture. She even knows that the ticking time bomb is a ridiculous standard to base legalization of torture upon. That should have been her main point. She allowed herself to be used to make a case for legalizing torture, setting herself up to be misunderstood.

[Dhalgren]

23. And for the love of the gods, she should know better....

[Stephanie]

26. it's difficult when you are willing to say whatever it takes to win

she has no intrinsic beliefs, she's only interested in power. so she splits the difference on every single issue in the hopes of collecting votes from both sides. her pre-eminent trait is her utter lack of sincerity. Hillary is for Hillary, and nothing else.

[MamaBear]

29. She wants to be all things to all people ...

Or at least most things to most people. When you try to mix all the colors, you end up with something that looks like mud.

Her lack of clarity is breathtaking. And if she treats the national primary the way she treated her recent New York primary, she will be unbeatable because she will not be there at all, and she will refuse to debate, not that she will step up and admit she's refusing, she'll just have the people hosting the event set ridiculous "standards" for her likely opponent.

And old Rupert Murdoch will just keep the cash flowing her way.

[Jack Rabbit]

25. Why Torture Doesn't Work

From Democratic Underground
Dated March 11, 2004

Why Torture Doesn't Work
A Critique of Alan Dershowitz' Case for Torture
By Jack Rabbit

Alan Dershowitz, the renowned legal scholar and civil libertarian, has stirred up a small hornets nest since the September 11 attacks by talking openly about the possibilities of sanctioning torture in America. Dershowitz feels it is incumbent on him to lead a discussion on a choice he feels is unpleasant but necessary.

Torture is regarded by progressive civil libertarians as an abomination that every civilized nation should outlaw. Modern international humanitarian law categorically prohibits its use. The Rome Statute classifies torture as a crime against humanity, the Third Geneva Convention (1949; Aritcles 3, 17, 87 and 130) prohibits its use against prisoners of war and the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949; Articles 3, 32 and 147) probhits it against civilians in situations of armed conflict. The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (1948; Article 5) states unequivocally, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Gloss is put on these declarations concerning torture by the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984), to which the United States is a party . . . .

Dershowitz is regarded by many as a progressive civil libertarian. That he should part company with others on a matter that many feel defines progressivism has outraged more than a few. However, when one such as Dershowitz suggests that we cast aside much of what we hold dear, perhaps we should give him a hearing.

Dershowitz' argument can be easily misconstrued if it is not read. An opinion piece written by Dershowitz for the Los Angeles Times (November 8, 2001) outlines his position; a reader can get a better idea of Dershowitz' thesis by reading Chapter 4 of his recent book, Why Terrorism Works: understanding the threat, responding to the challenge (Yale University, 2002, pp. 131-63; all page numbers refer to this volume). It should be understood from the start that Dershowitz is suggesting only "nonlethal" forms of torture aimed at extracting information in national security cases, such as those involving a planned terrorist attack, and other cases where the potential for loss of human life would be catastrophic. Moreover, Dershowitz is very much aware of the constitutional issues surrounding the use of torture; Dershowitz is quite aware that no information extracted under torture could be used against the informant in any criminal proceedings. Dershowitz deserves to be lauded for having his priorities straight enough to opt, when presented with an exclusive choice of one or the other, for preventing the execution of the crime and saving lives over prosecuting and punishing the criminal . . . .

(P)rogressive civil libertarians need not concede a single point to Dershowitz, let alone the supporters of Bush and Ashcroft. There are at least three problems with Dershowitz' case for torture, all of which are fatal.

Read more.

[jobycom]

30. That's not true in the types of situations she's talking about.

Torture doesn't work the way Bush is using it, as a fishing expedition to find out if someone knows anything or to force them to admit to something. What we are talking about here is whether it should be used in cases where you have a person that you are sure knows the details of a plan that you have some knowledge of. Say, for instance, your intelligence tells you there is a nuke under NYC, set to go off at 9 am, and you capture someone who helped plant it. In that case, you know enough to judge the information you receive, you know the person has the information you need. In that case, torture can work. "Beating it out of him," in other words.

Torture is never the right thing to do, but when there's a choice between two wrongs, you have to choose one of them. Let a million people die, or beat one person you know is trying to murder a million people in an attempt to save those people. Which would you choose? Show me a leader worthy of being president who wouldn't choose torture in that case. And I'm sure you are aware that such situations have happened before. Maybe not a million (though maybe), but at least hundreds to thousands of lives.

That's clearly all that Hillary was saying.

[Jack Rabbit]

37. I would not depend on information gained by torture under any circumstance

You're right, as a fishing expedition it is dreadful. We got Mr. Arar to confess to training with al Qaida in Afghanistan (fact: he has never been to Afghanistan) and Mr. al-Libi to tell us all Bush and Cheney wanted to know about Saddam's biochemical weapons (fact: as we all know, there were no weapons at the time). Until about 250 years ago, waterboarding was considered a very effective way of getting witches to confess.

Torture is very good at getting the subject to tell the interrogator what the authorities want to hear, but not so good at getting the subject to tell the interrogator what the authorities need to know.

Your example of the nuke planted under New York City is merely a variation of the ticking bomb scenario that Dershowitz uses for an example.

As I point out in the case of the ticking bomb scenario, the subject can say anything and the authorities will still have to investigate. Time is on the terrorist's side. All he has to do is withstand torture for 24 hours, feeding the interrogator steer manure, until the bomb goes off. His mission is accomplished.

No matter how any one tries to spin it, the fact remains that information gained by torture is unreliable.

Time would be better spent evacuating any potential target. That would save lives.

[6000eliot]

31. Torture is NEVER acceptable under any circumstances!

Why don't these people get that it isn't about "terrorists," it's about US.

[immoderate]

33. How to know "who knows about an imminent threat?"

Why, torture them, of course.:shrug:

--IMM

[On the Road]

34. Actually, This is Not a Bad Way to Defuse the Issue

If there actually were a "ticking time bomb" scenario, it's difficult to take the position that you would prefer mass murder of innocent Americans to extracting the information from the terrorist by any means you can.

That is the political debate Republicans want to have. That specious argument has given Bush pretty much a free hand to torture whoever he feels like. There has to be a better way to address the issue. If torture it's done directly to save lives, people don't see as immoral.

Now, I'm not sure there has ever been a "ticking time bomb" scenario in the history of the US. The point is basically moot. But I don't see anything wrong with allowing for that possibility in order to oppose torture in any of the cases it's actually being practiced now.

If someone has a gun and is on the point of killing my family, would I kill them? Absolutely, if I could. I doubt that situation would ever happen. But admitting that is not the same as sanctioning murder.

I realize H Clinton panders on some issues, but I don't think this is as bad as it is being portrayed.

[Dhalgren]

45. But if you killed someone who was threatening your family,

would you expect there to be no criminal investigation of your actions? Of course there would be, and if charges are brought, it would be up to a judge and jury to decide if you acted criminally or not. Or if the criminal investigation shows evidence in such a light that the district attorney doesn't file charges, then fine, also. You would not want it set up "a priori" that certain killings were acceptable - that would be up to the criminal system to determine, after the fact.

[On the Road]

51. I Agree to the Extent That

any deviations should be examined -- maybe a FISA court review beforehand to ascertain that there is an imminent threat to innocent lives. The "blank check" parts of the law absolutely beg for government abuse.

As far as the law goes, though, people do have their houses burglarized by armed criminals and do have to make the decision whether to use force. They can be sure that any actions they take will be examined by law enforcement, but self-defense is generally a ticket to be exonerated.

[Dhalgren]

53. Of course, self-defense, defense of others, mental state, etc.

are all legitimate defenses for someone charged with an assault based crime. There are numerous other defenses, as well, and that is as it should be. What, I think, we should never have done is make the commission of a crime, like torture, be pre-determined by some apparatchik. Couple this with the suspension of habeas corpus and you have the Soviet Union...

[On the Road]

54. If US FISA Justices are Apparatchiks,

then this is the Soviet Union already.

The important thing is to take away the "ticking time bomb" excuse and prevent it from being used as a cover for the indiscriminate torture that's being practiced today. It's a bullshit question, but bullshit questions can be very, very important in political debates.

The important thing is that it is limited to the hypothetical "ticking time bomb," which has probably never happened in this country's history, and not to the fishing expeditions common in counterinsurgency wars.

[Dhalgren]

55. FISA judges will not be used, Bush appointed "tribunals" will be,

or simply Bush or Rumsfeld. But we do agree on the "ticking bomb" question being a bullshit ploy and every Democrat (or anyone else for that matter) should refuse to accept it as a premise.

[On the Road]

56. There are Different Strategies for Dealing with the Ploy

My concern about simply refusing to accept the premise is that it may in fact hand Bush more political victories for the wrong reasons. The goal is to depict Democrats as sacrificing innocent American lives over a misplaced concern for the health and well being of terrorists. That resonates with a lot of people.

It's a nasty and cynical political tactic, since it undermines not only the constitution but human rights in general. It also doesn't work and doesn't describe what's actually going on now. But they're doing it, and Bush has successfully got a Congressional seal of approval on his dictatorial behavior.

One of the most powerful debating tactics -- perhaps THE most powerful -- is agreeing with your opponent. In a specific and limited way. If done correctly, it can completely deflate an argument and allow for a strenuous rebuttal.

What I HOPE Hillary Clinton is doing is something like this: "OK, you've asked about the ticking time bomb scenario. Under those very specific conditions where innocent lives are imminently in peril, I'll give you that, but it isn't happening now and may never happen." What that does is throw the Abu Ghraib situation into stark relief -- they seem to be just dragging people out of neighborhoods and saying "Who do you know who's an insurgent?" That's how Latin American dictators fight their dirty wars.

At least that's the best construction I can put on those remarks. There are certainly plenty of neocon sympathizers on this side of the aisle. I do think it's a quandry -- finding the right way to respond when Republicans still hold the cards is very tricky.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

35. No, it's not acceptable.

Such straddling of issues is what turned me off Hillary completely. There are some issues -- such as torture -- that have a very clear, moral, correct side. Any politico who is unable to committ to that is usless.

At this time we need leaders with moral clarity who are fearless in their expression.

[fooj]

36. I am sick to death of these idiots. Really.

How STUPID do they think we are?

[Greyhound]

49. What if they're right in their estimation?

That's what worries me. :shrug:

[atomic-fly]

38. Torture should remain illegal...

If someone is in the position to obtain life saving information, then
they should be willing to break the law. If it proves a valid
case then no one will hold them accountable.
There is too much room for abuse otherwise.

[Donnachaidh]

39. and this is why I will NEVER vote for Hillary

not even for dogcatcher.

[Tom Joad]

40. Clinton is a threat to millions of earth residents, due to her support

of the war. I still oppose torturing Hillary.

[ecstatic]

42. nt

[Beaverhausen]

43. Funny- when her husband said the same thing, how did you all react?

This exception already exists, IIRC. Bill Clinton mentioned it in his interview with Keith (I think - I know he mentioned it but I'm not positive where).

I thought bash Hillary day was wednesday- today is for the smoking -non smoking debate.

[Greyhound]

44. You nailed it.

I believed in Bill early on, but it was made abundantly clear that their progressive agenda was comprised solely of lip-service to placate the various special interests, while the real policy was directed exclusively at expanding the corporate agenda and the further erosion of social safeguards.

[Temporary1]

46. On the upside, her Democratic Primary opponents now have something to say.

about her...

[Nothing Without Hope]

50. The GOP really, really wants Hillary to be the Dem candidate. There are

good reasons for that. She's calculating her positions based on political triangulation constantly and it shows. She's pro Big Business all the way. And as far as I've been able to tell, she has no moral compass at all. She's a phony. The GOPs know that McCain would beat her easily, while he would have a much harder time against some other candidates, like Wes Clark or Al Gore.

From the Poodle Press, you'd think that the candidates were already nominated for 2008: Hillary Clinton and John McCain. The powers that be have been trying for some time already to force them down our throats. Don't let it happen.