Quote:
Originally Posted by Botnst
Dueling newspapers: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23detain.html?hp
Quote, "Even President Obama’s new director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, wrote in a memorandum to his staff last week that “high value information came from interrogations in which these methods were used,” an assertion left out when the memorandum was edited for public release. By contrast, Mr. Obama and most of his top aides have argued that the use of those methods betrayed American values — and anyway, produced unreliable information. Those are a convenient pair of opinions, of course: the moral balancing would be far trickier if the C.I.A. methods were demonstrated to have been crucial in disrupting major plots." |
Did you read the article? Maybe just the first paragraph? I think the most important thing to take away from Adm. Blairs statement is this -
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."
This is the second time I have posted this exact quote, but the "anything for security" people just won't see it, because it cripples their case. Just as they won't touch the legality issue. And the "anything for security" folks out there, what would Ben Franklin say?