k wrote:
] [ Interesting commentary on what i've taken to calling the
] "Torture is OK!" report... -k] There has been a lot of discussion of this report; the quotation underlined by this and other commentators being the focal point of a great deal of hand wringing. The thing is that this is a lawyer providing recommendations. He has essentially been asked "how can we do this and keep it legal" and he is throwing out everything that he can think of. The lawyer is obviously wrong on this point. I don't really fault him. I've been wrong professionally before. Everyone has. If only all of our work could be subjected to the kind of peer review he is getting here. The question at hand is whether or not the President followed through on this recommendation. If the answer is yes, then we have a fairly significant bone to pick with the Whitehouse. If the answer is no, then there really isn't a story hear, other then the one initially suggested, which is that the administration actually did ask a lawyer to brainstorm on ways that they could torture people legally. There is substance to that latter issue. We know that we've been employing torture, not just at Abu Gharib, but all over the place. I'm reminded of that spook who testified in Congress that "Its very important that the American people understand this. After 9/11 the gloves came off." The gloves came off. This is what they mean. Trial baloons where sent up about this in 2001 and not widely accepted, but they went forward here anyway. There has been a lot of discussion about the right/wrong/value/legality of this versus other methods that we typically employ. Thats the discussion I think we really ought to be having. Should we torture people? Is it effective? Does it save lives? Its not a simple question. RE: Talking Points Memo | 
