NYT: Hillary on Torture

[Colobo]

Indeed, Mrs. Clinton said just last year that she was open to a narrow exception to a torture ban for imminent worst-case scenarios. In recent days, her campaign has said that Mrs. Clinton, after conversations with generals and others, decided that there should not be narrow exceptions on torture policy based on hypothetical scenarios is permissible
So after she put out her statement, I asked an array of advisers — as well as a campaign spokesman, where she stood on the sort of interrogations that was the subject of a secret opinion by the Justice Department in 2005, according to a report in Thursday’s New York Times.
The key paragraph from the Times article:
The new opinion, the officials said, for the first time provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.
While the spokesman said he would check with the Clinton campaign high command on this, one Clinton senior adviser said that “Hillary is of course opposed to water-boarding, physical intimidation, and the like.” But then this adviser, and two others, said they wanted to check in with the Clinton campaign about the term used in the Times story, “painful physical and psychological tactics,” to determine how explicit they could be in describing Mrs. Clinton’s opposition to torture.
As of 2:15 p.m. Friday, neither the advisers nor the spokesman had any further information.
Mrs. Clinton’s statement Thursday came in the form of a letter that said torture “violates the fundamental rule of law and the institutions of justice” and should never be the policy of the United States.
Mrs. Clinton refused, however, to sign an anti-torture pledge that a liberal group, the American Freedom Campaign, had asked the presidential candidates to embrace.

More at:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/05/torture-is-torture/

[bigdarryl]

1. she's trying to have it both ways

UNBELIEVABLE!!! Just wait till the ads come out in the General election if she is the nominee. she will be branded a flip flopper.

[Forkboy]

2. What's a little torture?

More sterling Clinton ideals.

[TwilightGardener]

3. Just like her Iran vote, and then suddenly signing on

to Webb's bill to regain her creds, a bill that he himself acknowledges will not pass. NO CORE PRINCIPLES.

[Breeze54]

4. I'm so relieved !

:sarcasm:

"head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures." Good! :sarcasm:

“water-boarding, physical intimidation, and the like.” Bad!! :puke:

:banghead:

[wtmusic]

5. Cigarette burns for less than...5 seconds?

WTF? This subject as already been given enough thought. Outlawed by G3 & 4: "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment".

Can we just abide by what we've already agreed to, ferchrissakes?

[Mojambo]

6. I'm really surprised she's got trhe kind of support she has here on DU.

I can see some uninformed "liberals" out in the country attaching themselves to her because of the name and not really knowing any better, but damn...

[Kagemusha]

7. This story is outdated. Hillary signed the pledge, though last to do so.

I checked the group's own site.

http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=123

[papau]

10. The Times is correct but misleading- Hillary has not signed but most have not "signed" -instead send

letters saying that they agree with the statements in the pledge - and Hillary has also done this.

[Kagemusha]

12. Um, there's something very odd here then.

...

So if the American Freedom Campaign says that this or that candidate has signed their own pledge, but you state that Hillary and numerous others have not signed, I should believe you and ignore what the people who created the pledge says. Do I read you correctly?

I mean, if that's the case, roger that...

[papau]

13. Biden/Clinton/Edwards signed letters per the American Freedom Campaign site

That is only 3 out of the 8 - so my "most signed letters and not the pledge" memory was wrong - The new information on Gravel (Oct 4) and Obama (Oct 2) makes the count 5 signed the pledge - 3 signed letters supporting all parts of the pledge (the "supporting the constitution" does not really cover what was in the letters I read - they are a bit more extensive and basically say they support all parts of the pledge.

For example, Hillary's letter does not follow the groups court order for wiretapping wording exactly, but instead says the same thing "The rule of law is not an obstacle, despite what some in the Executive Branch seem to believe. In fact, the rule of law facilitates our safety and security. That is why I voted against the president's wiretapping bill this past August." Here is her letter:


October 4, 2007

Steve Fox

American Freedom Campaign

1320 18th Street NW, Fifth Floor

Washington, D.C. 20036

Dear Mr. Fox:

Thank you for your letter and for the opportunity to convey directly my views on these issues of great importance to our Nation.

I believe the most important strength of our country emanates from our values and our institutions of justice, as enshrined in our Constitution. Our values and institutions are not liabilities, as this administration wants Americans to believe. To the contrary, I believe our values – our belief in human dignity, the rule of law, and fundamental fairness – are our most important assets, and forfeiting them in the war against terrorism and extremism hands a victory to the enemy.

As we read today in The New York Times, however, the administration has continued to try to evade the law while claiming to abide by it, commissioning secret memos that turn the laws against torture and cruel treatment on their heads.

When I opposed the Military Commissions Act in 2006, I made my position clear: torture violates the fundamental rule of law and the institutions of justice, it does not bear reliable fruit in intelligence gathering, and it undermines our moral strength in a conflict that cannot be won solely with military might. It should never be the policy of the United States to torture.

My position has been reinforced and strengthened in recent months by a number of important events. In a December 2006 report commissioned by the Defense Intelligence Agency, a number of leading experts offered evidence that challenged the reliability of information obtained from coercive interrogation tactics.

In April 2007, I met personally with a group of retired Generals and Admirals, seasoned and experienced military officers with many years of experience among them, and they were unequivocal in their view that torture and other official cruelty have no place in U.S. policy. They also said that permitting torture does “grave damage to America’s moral authority and, by fueling jihadist recruitment, undermines our security.”

As I said in September, I could not agree more. Torture “cannot be American policy. Period.”

Similarly, we must uphold the most basic right of all people detained under government authority to challenge the reason for their detention. Our democracy is grounded in the conviction that courts must be able to check the arbitrary power of government over the individual. Denying habeas corpus to detainees in our custody undermines that principle and in doing so diminishes us all.

I also believe that the President must have the ability to pursue terrorists and defend our national security with the best technology at hand. But we have existing law that allows that -- the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The rule of law is not an obstacle, despite what some in the Executive Branch seem to believe. In fact, the rule of law facilitates our safety and security. That is why I voted against the President's wiretapping bill this past August.

To lead, our country must uphold its most fundamental rules and standards. The next president must not only possess a clear-eyed assessment of the terrorist threat, but must demonstrate the moral courage to face that threat without forsaking the values which set our Nation apart. I look forward to taking up that challenge as President.

Thank you for your important work on these issues.

(signature of Hillary Clinton)

FROM THE AMERICAN FREEDOM SITE:

http://www.americanfreedomcampaign.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=63&Itemid=

Candidate Responses


Senator Joe Biden (D-DE)

Senator Joe Biden provided the American Freedom Campaign with a signed letter on September 25, detailing his commitment to defending the Constitution.

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY)

Senator Hillary Clinton provided the American Freedom Campaign with a signed letter on October 4, detailing her commitment to defending the Constitution.

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT)

Senator Dodd signed the pledge on August 31.

Senator John Edwards (D-NC)

Former Senator John Edwards provided the American Freedom Campaign with a signed letter on September 13, detailing his commitment to defending the Constitution.

Senator Mike Gravel (D-AK)

Former Senator Mike Gravel made a verbal commitment to sign the pledge on September 17. A signature on the pledge was received on October 4.

Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)

Representative Kucinich signed the pledge on September 6.

Senator Barack Obama (D-IL)

Senator Obama signed the pledge on October 2.

Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM)

Governor Richardson signed the pledge on August 30.

[Kagemusha]

14. Ok, here's the lesson I learned from this...

American Freedom Campaign shouldn't feature a The Hill article claiming that Clinton signed the pledge, in the top right corner of its front page, if in fact she did not sign the pledge, as detailed by AFC on another part of its site.

Confusion removed :)

...So Obama signed the damned pledge and Clinton didn't. Cute.

[papau]

16. There have been and will be many times my memory fails - it's nice that this time it didn't :-)

:-)

[calteacherguy]

8. "after conversations with generals"

Read, Clark.

[IndianaGreen]

9. I read it as meaning that a President Hillary will continue our slide into militarism

Just today General Petraeus was giving a rationale for war against Iran.

Remember what our Founding Fathers and the Framers said about America keeping standing armies? They are a threat to liberty!

[calteacherguy]

11. She won't. She's going to be surrounded by people of a completely different mindset

than the neocons. Folks who value internationalism, the U.N., and diplomacy. And she's no war-monger. She's got a level head on her shoulders, and she certainly doesn't believe she's on a holy mission from God (like the current occupant).

[killbotfactory]

15. Why don't her advisors know her position on torture?

Is it too much to ask for a straight answer?