Tuesday, 10 November 2009

FBI opposed torture

Looks like the Feds weren't at all comfortable about Cheney's chopping down of the conventions governing interrogation, seeing it as contrary to the US Constitution. According to recently released memos, FBI experts argued in 2002 that 'enhanced interrogation' was illegal and ineffective, i.e. it was torture. Surely, there's more than enough at issue here to justify resolving matters in a court of law? This is the only way the debate can be resolved and justice be done.

4 comments:

Vern said...

I think trials would tear the country apart rather than resolve anything and it would be politically toxic for Obama.

I'd never seen that website before by the way. Have you ever read Victor Davis Hanson? He's a professor of classics at UCLA(I think), who provides a good, sane conservative viewpoint. No foaming or ranting.

Gaw said...

Yeah, politically, that's all we'd hear about for a couple of years. It's not an easy one.

No I haven't come across VDH. Will check him out - thanks for the reco.

Vern said...

VDH is a classical liberal rather than a US big C conservative which makes him readable, and not depressing and/or frightening.

Sean said...

And the Feds were the ones who missed the golden chance to link the dots and maybe stop 9/11 afterall there was a lot of previous in AQ trying to knock the WTC towers down was there not?

My guess is when the shit hit the fan, the Bush White House rightly early on pointed the finger at the FBI and gowd bless em' they paid it back, how morally correct of them, being such a fine upstanding organisation.

politics, politics, is all just politics, and so would any court case.