And on top of that, you Conservatives are all “pro-life” but then you go wanting to torture people, shoot people, execute people…sometimes the Republican party makes me sick!

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTEzMjc3YWU3ZmJiNzA3NThhNjdiMmY4MDkzNjRlMDY=

Cheney is betting that he and “Bushie” will be exonerated if he can get Obama to release some of those documents. Anybody taking bets on whether those will be released to the public?

I also agree with afrjc – try them all.

Particularly, thanks for this article:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/feb/23/00020/

And we salute your efforts with the ACDA:
http://www.freeliberal.com/blog/archives/003422.php

To help with my research of this subject, Mr Giraldi, could you point to any article that you have ever published that is critical of any of the top management of the Clinton administration, or the Obama administration? (Other than, of course, mentioning in passing that Clinton was trying to gut the CIA’s budget, and placed his cronies and supporters in many positions). You mentioned that “before the 90′s” torture was not a serious consideration. Yet none of your comments seem to address what changes in this area were happening prior to 2000.

I was easily able to find your absolute distaste of anything “Bushie”, meaning Bush 43, though you seemed somewhat more at peace with Bush 41.

Do you have any idea how many of these CLINTON PEOPLE in the rank and file of the CIA (presumably with left-leaning sympathies), were replaced prior to 9/11?

I am a little puzzled why you have changed philosophy so suddenly, unless it was for the purpose of helping us start this present discussion. You have intimated earlier that you think upper level management are the primary targets of your desire to prosecute.

But today you introduce the twin concepts of allowing torture in some cases, and plausible deniability (which means that it is ok for the LOWER echelons to decide to torture, and that it’s okay not to tell their bosses).

Your excellent article for the HUFFINGTON POST said, “McCain’s flip-flop on torture is perhaps his greatest hypocrisy…”. Help us to understand why it’s different with you.

You have previously said there is no such thing as a “ticking bomb scenario” like we see on TV, and that good information cannot come from torture. Today, however, now that Obama is in control, we learn that you envision a situation where this would be a useful tool, if we put you in charge.

The “torture memos” said TWO PEOPLE, up to 2004, were waterboarded. You have stated that they waterboarded those 2, A LOT. Could you cite some references for us, to point to HOW MANY PEOPLE were waterboarded? Or should we be satisfied with the statement by the New York Times that the number 183, has shocked many neocons into silence?

In your EXCELLENT insider’s view of the CIA that you provided to TAC, you talked about torture, and a lot of corruption, and a lot of mismanagement. But I wonder about the IMPORTANT stuff. Did Israel give us the false intel, or was it manufactured by rogue elements within the CIA, or did the BUSH ADMINISTRATION invent it, or what?

If you were allowed to parade George Tenent in front of a firing squad, would you include Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson, et al, who were waging war on a sitting commander in chief under cover of CIA protection, and thereby destroying CIA credibility and secrecy?

Finally, I guess, now that the LIBs are in control, if you re-instituted torture, would it be the weak brand practiced by Bush’s boys, or would it be the real deal, like they did in the ‘NAM?

Should the guy who attached the electrodes be tried or the guy who ordered the electrodes to be attached? There is no simple answer to that, but much of the information now coming out goes beyond disturbing.

Why this perpetual muddying of the waters. Of course there’s a simple answer to that: try them both since credible initial evidence suggests both committed crimes and the only way to be sure they did or didn’t is to take it out of the hands of politicians (for whom all calculations are difficult) and put it into the hands of experienced prosecutors (who can presumably follow the evidence where it leads quite readily — given the chance).

Only people someone comfortable with the politicization of justice could think that the answer to this question was anything but simple. Again: both.

And shouldn’t we have empirical evidence that torture works at all before even maintaining it as a possibility, whether subject to carte blanche or restrictions?

P.S. Cue the usual suspects with their tiresome posture that I am naive, don’t want to fight, etc. etc.

I don’t want a CIA that routinely waterboards, but I do think that there might arise a situation where torture might actually save some American lives and would have to be considered as an option.

That’s the problem.

Human nature is such that torture, once accepted as a possibility in the worst-case scenarios, becomes commonplace. I don’t trust anyone in any military or intelligence agency with the discretionary power to decide whether torture is really necessary or not.

Power abhors a vacuum, so the answer will tend to be yes if and when the question is framed that way. Also, I’m skeptical of how independent the investigators could possibly be in the aftermath of another terror attack. It seems as though they’d just follow the example of our government and give carte blanche to the torturers out of fear and vengefulness.