Andrew: "It's very hard to believe that anyone is making this statement with a straight face. Rahm sums it up:"
What the memos did do is reveal the woefully misreasoned legal thinking used to justify torture-lite. Publicizing the memos has been a grave embarrassment to former Bush administration officials, Republicans, and the country as a whole. But it was necessary for a minimum level of accountability and a restoration of the rule of law for a future free of the US ever again countenancing torture."One of the reasons the president was willing to let this information out [was that] the information was out," he said. "So if they're saying you basically have exposed something, it's been written. Go get the New York Review of Books. It is there. So the notion that somehow we're exposing something -- it's already been out. In fact, President Bush...allowed a lot of this information out. So the notion that somehow this all of a sudden is a game changer doesn't take cognizance of the fact it's in the system and in the public domain. Therefore, it's not new... Number two: it's one of the key tools al Qaeda has used for recruitment. There has been a net cost to America by changing the way America is seen in the world, which means banning this technique and practice, we have actually stopped them and prevented them from using it as a rallying cry."
Except that Rahm is lying for political purposes, as usual. Some of the information was out, some wasn't. It's pretty obvious there was new information, otherwise no one would have cared in the first place, if it was all common knowledge.
ReplyDelete"Publicizing the memos has been a grave embarrassment to former Bush administration officials, Republicans, and the country as a whole."
The main embarrassment is that we can't keep secrets secret.
"But it was necessary for a minimum level of accountability and a restoration of the rule of law"
It was totally unnecessary, especially if we already knew everything anyway, as you just argued.
"for a future free of the US ever again countenancing torture."
Dream on. In the real world torture is used in situations where it is deemed necessary. It's almost a 100% certainty that the U.S. will employ torture again.
That live in a country that does not keep illegalities secret is something to be proud of, I think.
ReplyDeleteWe did not know the legal details how the torture-lite was justified and who did it. There was no accountability.
What we knew, as Rahm has said, are the techniques used. There's nothing political about that.
But ok, I'll keep dreaming of a world where very few people agree with you that the US should torture again. It's kind of like the world we live in.
"That live in a country that does not keep illegalities secret is something to be proud of, I think."
ReplyDeleteExcept we do keep illegalities secret. That's why we have a clandestine service of the CIA. We just aren't keeping these particular instances secret. Revealing national security secrets for political reasons is nothing to be proud of.
"We did not know the legal details how the torture-lite was justified and who did it"
And we didn't need to.
"There was no accountability."
Sure there was. The Bush administration ordered it. They aren't denying it. Ask Dick Cheney.
"What we knew, as Rahm has said, are the techniques used."
We knew some, not all. Some techniques were only speculated about, and not even used.
"But ok, I'll keep dreaming of a world where very few people agree with you that the US should torture again. It's kind of like the world we live in."
Yeah right. If you phrase the question a certain way, a solid majority would support torturing terrorists right now. If there's another attack, the support will be overwhelming.