TORTURE Advocate Alan Dershowitz Defends Bill Clinton's Torture Policies in this Piece...

[KoKo]

What's Interesting is that Tim Russert used this quote from Bill against Hillary in last night's Debate. Apparently Bill is all for torture if a "national emergency is imminent." It was a surprise to this DU'er so I went looking for the quote about where Bill thought Torture was a Good thing. I found it from Alan Dershowitz site...but the post links back to an NPR INTERVIEW! and there are more links that Russert found ...or he wouldn't have Gone AFTER HILLARY...

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Clinton: Torture Advocate?
By Alan M. Dershowitz
L.A. Times | 10/18/2006


Although I personally oppose the use of torture, I recognize the reality that some forms of torture have been, are being and will continue to be used by democracies in extreme situations, regardless of what we say or what the law provides. In an effort to limit the use of torture to genuinely extreme "ticking bomb" situations, rather than allowing it to become routine, I proposed that the president or a federal judge would have to take personal responsibility for ordering its use in extraordinary situations.

For suggesting this approach to the terrible choice of evils between torture and terrorism, I was condemned as a moral monster, labeled an advocate of torture and called a Torquemada.

Now I see that former President Clinton has offered a similar proposal. In a recent interview on National Public Radio, Clinton was asked, as someone "who's been there," whether the president needs "the option of authorizing torture in an extreme case."

This is what he said in response:

Look, if the president needed an option, there's all sorts of things they can do. Let's take the best case, OK. You picked up someone you know is the No. 2 aide to Osama bin Laden. And you know they have an operation planned for the United States or some European capital in the next…three days. And you know this guy knows it. Right, that's the clearest example. And you think you can only get it out of this guy by shooting him full of some drugs or water-boarding him or otherwise working him over. If they really believed that that scenario is likely to occur, let them come forward with an alternate proposal.

"We have a system of laws here where nobody should be above the law, and you don't need blanket advance approval for blanket torture. They can draw a statute much more narrowly, which would permit the president to make a finding in a case like I just outlined, and then that finding could be submitted even if after the fact to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Clinton was then asked whether he was saying there "would be more responsibility afterward for what was done." He replied:

Yeah, well, the president could take personal responsibility for it. But you do it on a case-by-case basis, and there'd be some review of it." Clinton quickly added that he doesn't know whether this ticking bomb scenario "is likely or not," but he did know that "we have erred in who was a real suspect or not.

Clinton summarized his views in the following terms:

If they really believe the time comes when the only way they can get a reliable piece of information is to beat it out of someone or put a drug in their body to talk it out of 'em, then they can present it to the Foreign Intelligence Court, or some other court, just under the same circumstances we do with wiretaps. Post facto…. But I think if you go around passing laws that legitimize a violation of the Geneva Convention and institutionalize what happened at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo, we're gonna be in real trouble.

(ALAN DERSHOWITZ then replies with this!



It is surprising that this interview with the former president has received so little attention from those who were so quick to jump all over me. Clinton goes even further than I did. He would, in extreme cases, authorize the granting of a warrant "post facto" by a specialized court, as is now the case with national security wiretaps. What I proposed is that the warrant authorization be issued before the use of extreme measures is permitted. A preliminary warrant could be issued in a manner of minutes, to be followed up by a more thorough, after-the-fact evaluation and review.
I offered my controversial proposal as a way to stimulate debate about a difficult choice of evils. I hope that the silence following the Clinton interview does not mean the debate has ended. The problem persists. Torture will continue. Let's not stop thinking and talking about whether the evil of torture is ever a necessary

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:d9RrT9jjua0J:www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp%3FID%3D24989+Bill+Clinton+on+torture&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us&client=firefox-a

and NPR INTERVIEW ..here..

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6115775

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

1. VOMIT!!!! n/t

[Kagemusha]

2. Look this isn't complicated.

In a truly extreme situation, maybe a president and his people have to bend or break the law to protect America. That will be accepted and defended, and the courts and Congress will not find people guilty for doing what is wrong under all other circumstances, but necessary in a truly extreme situation and forming the lesser evil.

Making such actions routinely acceptable and normal is making evil banal and acceptable. That would be the Bush Republican position.

[KoKo]

4. I someone "twists your Genitals and Water Boards You Drowning" What would YOU SAY?

:shrug: That's the question. CIA Experts with decades of experience and John McCain who was interred in Prison Camp and tortured in Vietnam have all said...TORTURE GETS YOU NOTHING!

:shrug:

[Kagemusha]

5. I was speaking as to the constitution, law, and so on.

Alan's a lawyer, it's an issue of law.

I'm not going to stand here and argue that torture gets results because in terms of accurate, useful, lucid intelligence, my understanding is no, it doesn't. In other words, I don't disagree with you. But I didn't talk about torture specifically because the issue is broader than that.

[Mike Nelson]

3. I hadn't seen Alan D. lately....

My hopes were high...

...but he still spouts his well-versed stupidity.
I wish he'd retire.
No doubt he'll be called to defend his OJ...