Gallup: Americans Want Investigation into US Torture

I agree, so long as there is no party affiliation involved. Although, finding folks that are nuetral in this subject will be hard to find

Just remember... the Republicans will not be the only ones investigated.

SINCE PELOSI WANTS AN "INDEPENDENT" INVESTIGATION so badly, surely she and Amereica will not be opposed if "independent" investigators start with who REALLY knew what in Congress. Especially since her own story has changed 3-times in 5-days with evolving evidence.

Ryan...That is absolutely the point. I don't want either party to think this is the way America wants the Gov't to work. I don't even want that scumbag Cheney prosecuted. I just want all the facts and let everyone know WE won't tolerate it to become Policy.

Who in the hell trusts the gallop polls? You can look at many polls online and the ones I have seen show the American public is vehemently against prosecution of the previous admin! I believe the "torture" was necessary to keep our military and people SAFE!
This is an outrage..classified documents being released during a time of war! oops I forgot; we can't call it a war anymore..what BULLSHIT!

Where is the gallup poll that shows that most Americans really don't give a crap about this. There is no crying out of justice from the international community. Just one group of politicians who want to discredit another group of politicians. It was done, its over,let it go and move on.

What I want know is when do I get my turn to water board the varmits?? Fly airplane loads of people purposely into two buildings hoping to kill many thousands! And you whimps think you are going to defeat them WITHOUT water boarding a few??

today photos are being released regarding torture, by the big ZERO, despite his having been advised by former CIA and his own CIA directors not to do so.

he decided last night, and they are being released today.

he is setting this country up for retalliation, big time.

it seems to appear that is what he wants.

is this man really so narcisstic and naive that he thinks this will encourage peace.

when the next big attack happens on this country's soil, and I am afraid it will happen, who will get the blame, Bush, Cheney, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Bush Sr, Reagon, Ford, Carter, Nixon, or Maybe Lincoln, Washington, or Jefferson.

because I am sure, the O-bots will not blame The Big ZERO, no not him. never him.

Torture is a very difficult philosophical concept that everyone brushes over. From both sides frankly. Someone spoke of a poll on Morning Joe that indicated sixty some odd percent of Americans agreed they did not have a problem with the treatment of the prisoners at GITMO.

I have a nuanced position requiring "Torture Warrants." The application of a warrant for torture in a "ticking bomb" scenario. Torture was used to unfoil a plot to kill the Pope and blow up several airplanes. It worked. President Clinton is on record saying torture is justified in a "ticking bomb" situation as are most leaders. I believe he said that to Alan Dershowitz on NPR.

Dershowitz argues for a warrant requirement for "non-lethal, extreme pain." Normatively, he's against torture, but recognizes its efficacy and asks to be honest and use proper procedure.

We are not using interrogation techniques to get a confession. It is self proving information being sought. It's not as if this evidence could be used in a criminal proceeding. This is different.

There is also the tough question as to what constitutes torture versus aggressive interrogation. No one attempts to define it, and, that's part of the debate. I agree with Clinton, not Dershowitz, to the extent that under limited circumstances, torture is justified.

Ryan's right BTW. This thing is going to come down on everyone. Pelosi made a statement essentially saying she knew of it, but did not know it was being done. She sounded like a fool objectively. She did not object to it and so far, no one has come forward and said they did. Matt's article the other day with the futuristic AP story was great.

I say this: For those who think this is such an easy discussion philosophically, it's not. There are so many issues: What is torture, what isn't, what do we talk about in public, what don't we, what is the effect on the CIA by going public, or the chilling effect on all parts of government? And so on. Everyone thinks they have all the answers. Knowing first there's some more thinking to be done is a good start.

Some lectures at Harvard on the issue are in the Easter Eggs justifying torture and the warrant application. Click on the links if you click on these links. The lecture series on this at Harvard is excellent if you haven't seen them. Great arguments why in exigent circumstances for a ticking bomb scenario, why torture is justified. I only differ in that I think normatively, it can be justified. Not just for purposes of procedure or empirical evidence proving it works.

But I digest...

http://cubicpolitics.wordpress.com/2009/04/16/torture-by-bug-is-dead/

http://cubicpolitics.wordpress.com/2009/04/21/impeach-justice-torture/

Good comment CUBE
(see you can if you try)
This has got them all running for cover.

America must make certain that this never happens again, even if Hannity does a PR stunt to instill some sorely missing honor in his character.

"..the core issue on prosecuting a wartime President for torture."

Cheney was never CIC during his illegal torture approval with fellow bad apples Rumy, Rice, Wolfowitz, Pearl, et al.

The constitution was never more threatened by those above who trampled it, ruining our reputation and illegally killing dozens NOW proven innocent, that did not survive US "Interrogation" under w. The innocent Iraqi cab driver is one such torture death.

Cheney's unobtainable goal was fake proof for an illegal oil war Via Saddam's supposed 911 involvement. Even under torture, no one was dumb enough to say that!
http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2008/08/08/suskind/index.html

Hi pundit
Still want to swing that Axe?

This American wants an investigation of those responsible for the collapse of the economy.

Ryan12: Just remember... the Republicans will not be the only ones investigated. ====Although the "buck" stops with them.

jpgoodrow1:SINCE PELOSI WANTS AN "INDEPENDENT" INVESTIGATION so badly, surely she and Amereica will not be opposed if "independent" investigators start with who REALLY knew what in Congress. Especially since her own story has changed 3-times in 5-days with evolving evidence====And who was the commander and vice commander and chief during that time, and of course the Justice Department's role in dictating what is torture and is not torture?

FOR seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned.One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him.

It was the right decision to release these memos, as we need the truth to come out. This should not be a partisan matter, because it is in our national security interest to regain our position as the world’s foremost defenders of human rights. Just as important, releasing these memos enables us to begin the tricky process of finally bringing these terrorists to justice.

The debate after the release of these memos has centered on whether C.I.A. officials should be prosecuted for their role in harsh interrogation techniques. That would be a mistake. Almost all the agency officials I worked with on these issues were good people who felt as I did about the use of enhanced techniques: it is un-American, ineffective and harmful to our national security.

Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat D’Amuro, an F.B.I. assistant director, that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller (this was documented in the report released last year by the Justice Department’s inspector general).

My C.I.A. colleagues who balked at the techniques, on the other hand, were instructed to continue. (It’s worth noting that when reading between the lines of the newly released memos, it seems clear that it was contractors, not C.I.A. officers, who requested the use of these techniques.)

As we move forward, it’s important to not allow the torture issue to harm the reputation, and thus the effectiveness, of the C.I.A. The agency is essential to our national security. We must ensure that the mistakes behind the use of these techniques are never repeated. We’re making a good start: President Obama has limited interrogation techniques to the guidelines set in the Army Field Manual, and Leon Panetta, the C.I.A. director, says he has banned the use of contractors and secret overseas prisons for terrorism suspects (the so-called black sites). Just as important, we need to ensure that no new mistakes are made in the process of moving forward — a real danger right now.

Ali Soufan was an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005

DON'T YOU PEOPLE KNOW WHAT THIS IS GOING TO DO TO ARE SECURITY AND ARE SOLDIERS, FIGHTING TO KEEP US SAFE? I COULD CARE LESS ABOUT TORTURING TERRORIST THAT WANT TO KILL US. NOW THEY KNOW THAT AMERICA IS FALLING APART.GIVING ARE SENSITIVE DATA, TO THE ENEMY I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE IT, I THINK THE DEMOCRATS HAVE LOST THEIR MINDS HEY AMERICANS COME FIRST, THESE NUTS HAVE TO GO I'M AFRAID OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO US.I CAN STAND ALL THE LIES FROM THESE DEMS I BELIEVE THEY WANT US TO GO DOWN.THEY HAVE TAKEN ARE MONEY NOW THEY TO TAKE ARE COUNTRY.WE HAVE TO STAND UP AND FIGHT FOR ARE COUNTRY.WE JUST CAN'T LET THIS GO ON ANY LONGER. WERE IS BILL AIRYS THE HOME GROWN TERRORIST OH THATS RIGHT HE HATES AMERICA AND WHAT IT STANDS FOR OBAMAS GOOD BUD. WHAT KIND OF PERSON DID YOU PEOPLE PUT IN THE WHITE HOUSE????? AND AMEWRICAN HATER FOR SURE.

I WOULD TO SEE GEORGE ET ALL HIS ADMINISTRATION TO BE INDEPENTENLY INVESTAGATED AND TRIED IN THE U.S. COURTS NOT CONGRESS; THAT WOULD BE LIKE THE POLICE INVESTAGATING THE POLICE AND WE KNOW THE RESULTS OF THOSE INVESTAGATIONS. THE COUNTRY NEEDS JUSTICE!

2/3 support President Obama and his torture Prohabition!

Obama Averages 63% Approval in His First Quarter besting Bush's, Clinton & Reagan!

Obama's 63% first-quarter average matches the historical average of 63% for elected presidents' first quarters since 1953. However, it is the fourth highest for a newly elected president since that time, and the highest since Jimmy Carter's 69% in 1977. The historical first-quarter average includes two presidents whose scores exceeded 70% (John Kennedy's 74% and Dwight Eisenhower's 71%). http://www.gallup.com/poll/117598/Obama-Averages-Approval-First-Quarter.aspx

4/21-23/09 Gallup 65% Obama Approval 28% Pining for Bush

And even Pew agrees: Pew 4/14-21/09 63% Approve
26% Disapprove Vs. 16% Approval for Reps with 69% Disapproval.

No matter what they do, they need to call it something other than the "truth commission". That smacks too much of "1984" and Star Chambers.

They also need to find people who are not politically affiliated with either party, if that's at all possible, to do this thing. Otherwise, that will turn out something like a post I put up yesterday. Here it is again.
------------------------------------------------------

Like everything a bureaucracy does, this will go nowhere. First, Congress will send the investigations to committees who will then decide it needs to go to a subcommittee. The members of the
subcommittee will declare they need to form a commission. After several years of requesting documents, making speeches and calling press conferences, the commission will find they need a special prosecutor. The special prosecutor will impanel a grand jury to meet once a week and issue subpoenas. The folks under investigation at
this point, politicians all, will get attorneys who will go to court to quash the subpoenas. One or two will be forced to appear and testify under oath. Then, they will have their attorneys arrange
meetings with the special prosecutor to discuss a plea agreement and decide to go back to the grand jury to clarify the things they lied about the first time. The special prosecutor will hold another press
conference (his or her 25th or 26th press conference) to declare that charges are coming down and justice will be done. One or two defendants will ultimately plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of cruelty to one of the insects they put in a prisoners cell. By then, it will be the year of Our Lord, 2025, and everyone will say "well, we showed those bastards they can't get away with THAT - whatever THAT
was".