Bring it on-let's have this debate

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/bring-it-on/2011/03/03/AFcxcEaG_blog.html

Bring it on
By Greg Sargent


The debate over whether torture led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden — a case that many conservatives and Bush apologists have made in recent days — may go far beyond op ed pages and blogs and may very well receive a public airing in Congress.

That’s because Republicans are likely to raise it at the upcoming confirmation hearings for David Petraeus, Obama’s choice to head the CIA, and Leon Panetta, the current CIA chief who is now the President’s pick for Defense Secretary.

snip//

Since this is likely to become a rallying cry for the right, let’s state as clearly as possible that this is a great idea. Petraeus’s opposition to torture is well known. If Republicans want to provide the popular Petraeus a high-profile forum to restate the reasons he opposes torture — right after the Obama administration notched the killing of America’s number one terrorist foe — then by all means, go for it!

It’s also going to get interesting if and when Republicans grill incoming Defense Secretary Panetta on torture. Conservatives have been citing a CBS News interview with Panetta in which he claimed that “there was some valuable information that was derived through those kinds of interrogations.” Panetta will be asked to explain this quote. But in that interview, Panetta also said other approached might have elicited the same info. By all means — give him a chance to spell this out clearly.

Panetta opposed torture before becoming CIA chief, and since his appointment, Republicans have all but demanded that he renounce his opposition to it. Yet despite this, Panetta went on to preside over the CIA at a time when this country accomplished one of its leading counter-terrorism goals — one that didn’t happen during a pro-torture president’s tenure. If Republicans want to give Panetta a chance to explain to the country why the successful tracking and killing of America’s most wanted terrorist does not support claims that torture “works” and should be reinstated, then let’s have at it.

Come on, then — let’s have this debate.

[abelenkpe]

1. I'm thinking republicans won't go there

if they're smart....but maybe they're not.

[jenmito]

2. They will definitely go there. They can't help themselves. And it will hurt them. n/t

[jenmito]

3. Didn't waterboarding stop under the Bush administration? n/t

[babylonsister]

4. I thought it started there. nt

[jenmito]

5. It did. But I thought his admin. claimed they stopped it in '04 or '05. n/t

[jenmito]

6. I found a link:

But Reuters's Mark Hosenball includes details that tell a different story, hearing from multiple "current and former U.S. officials" that the crucial courier information only came long after harsh interrogation techniques like waterboarding had been abandoned. It wasn't just post-2002 that this happened, but post-2004, i.e. after the CIA had "suspended" the harsh techniques, according to Hosenball. "The first key intelligence reports identifying the al Qaeda courier reached U.S. counter-terrorism officials in 2004," writes Hosenball, citing "a former U.S. national security official with direct personal knowledge."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/atlantic/20110503/wl_atlantic/rethinkingguantanamoafterdetaineeinfoledbinladen37287

That's ANOTHER problem for them. Someone needs to remind them of this fact.

[Vattel]

7. The more this is discussed, the better.

But we need more than discussion. The Congress should amend the war crimes act and the torture act so that they clearly and unambiguously prohibit waterboarding and other forms of cruel and inhumane interrogation techniques.

[Hutzpa]

8. Love it

call them on their bluff.