Hillary Clinton on torture: "It cannot be American policy, period."

[journalist3072]

A central and vexing challenge in running for the same office your husband once held is demonstrating that you are your own person. During last night's Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) seemed to dispatch that with a couple easy quips.

It came late in the two-hour debate aired on MSNBC, after many viewers may have switched channels or nodded off. Tim Russert, the "Meet the Press" host who moderated the debate, tossed out one of those hypotheticals meant to throw candidates off their scripts. It came from a guest on his show once, he said, who had suggested there should be a presidential exception to a torture ban in extreme circumstances -- such as capturing al-Qaeda's number 3, who knows the location of a big bomb about to go off. "We have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him," Russert quoted the guest saying.

Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) quickly said no, there should not be a presidential exception. And Russert then turned to Clinton, who agreed. "As a matter of policy," she said, "it cannot be American policy, period."

Then Russert sprang the trap. "The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year," he said. "So he disagrees with you."

Hillary Clinton paused a moment. "Well," she said with a smile, "he's not standing here right now."

The line sent the audience off. Russert tried to press the point.

"So there is a disagreement," he said.

"Well," she replied wryly, "I'll talk to him later."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/27/post_99.html

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Face It - She's Really OK With torture

She said the “ticking time bomb” scenario represented a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.

“In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable,” she said.

“That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law,” she added.

And her husband pioneered the practice of outsourcing torture - and I don't see her divorcing him. She's at least pretty OK with it.

She likes war, and she's OK with torture. Why aren't she and her supporters proud of that?

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. And Which Facts Are Those? nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. The Hypothetical Is Out There

But what would you do in that situation...

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=385&topic_id=63781&mesg_id=63795

[Duppers]

39. AND consider this....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition#Background

Click down to "History" and the statement "according to Richard Clark."

(Believe me, I was as upset by reading that as much as anyone here could be. I feel I've been too naive.)

They MUST know that it WAS A MISTAKE.

And consider it's implication, since it was ILLEGAL.
<Bush: "If you're going to prosecute me, then you're going down too." It's not an impossible, possibly unspoken, scenario.>

[Solon]

11. Its an "intellectual" exercise for lazy minds.

If you absolutely knew the suspect was involved in such a plot, and knew, exactly, when the bomb was going to go off, then you can find the bomb without resorting to torture. This is a fantasy sold to people who watch far too much TV and Movies.

[mondo joe]

12. That's why Hillary's answer was perfect.

Fine - as a hypothetical, if that absurd TV moment were to happen, then you do the dumb TV solution thing. But since it's not going to happen, you'll never do it.

[TahitiNut]

14. I disagree.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/423

[mondo joe]

16. I know. But though I agree with your points, I think in the context of campaigning

it doesn't much answer the question.

[TahitiNut]

18. IMHO, it answers the question and makes the questioner eat crow.

It not only describes WHY such a hypothetical should never rationalize torture as a policy, it puts the questioner in a position of being inhumanly self-serving and unpatirotic if they disagree.

THIS answer ---> http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/423

[mondo joe]

21. I frankly find the answer somewhat evasive.

It doesn't matter what Tim is willing to do -- he's not running for office.

I like the framing, but I'd like it better if it came after an answer.

[Solon]

15. See, this is why I could never enter politics...

If I were asked this question, tact and decorum would totally leave my mind, my response would be blunt:

"Who the fuck thought up that scenario, those group of monkeys that write the script for '24'?"

I would probably then proceed to insult the interviewer, Republicans, and idiots in general, but that's just me.

[Swamp Rat]

17. Me too.

And I might even punch Tim in the eye, giving him a big ol' shiner for his next broadcast.



edit: :sarcasm:

[Solon]

20. I never resort to physical violence unless its to defend myself physically...

But, let's just say, get me riled up and my words would have the same effect as being hit in the face.

[Swamp Rat]

22. I watched too much Tom and Jerry as a child

and 3 stooges. :D



edit: the above post was :sarcasm:

I prefer to maintain my pacifist lifestyle.

[Solon]

24. Yeah, me too...

I love the 3 stooges, they are classic and timeless.

[mondo joe]

19. I do think the most imporant part of her answer was at the end:

"then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable".

That's what makes it work for me --- not only that she answers the question, but then frames it in the context of accountability.

[Amonester]

23. And what "kind" of accountability would that be?

Admit "the victim of the President's exception was proven to be innocent afterwards" and step down, or be impeached?

[mondo joe]

26. To my thinking, yes. NT

[Amonester]

30. I forgot to add the following procedure:

And then, a one-way ticket to The Hague?

(Sorry.)

[mondo joe]

32. If that's the determination of the presding body (or bodies).

Congress couldn't do that by impeachment, however.

[Amonester]

33. Torture is a barbaric act, and the answers obtained can never be...

trusted to be reliable. The victims either just lie or say whatever the interogators want to hear (more so, when they're truly innocent). Plus, it puts the security and the lives of citizens and troops at risk everywhere around the world.

Thank you for understanding.

[mondo joe]

34. I agree wholeheartedly.

But that's not the point of answering (or asking the question).

The question is a hypothetical about a scenario that ever will happen, because it can't happen. The point of the question isn't whether torture is effective or not.

[Amonester]

36. Point taken.

And even if the hypothetical scenario that never will happen happened, where an alleged "terrariss" was to confess a false location, and have it "evacuated" (for nothing), the real location could go "boom" (or else) anyway...

No gain. Only losses.

The true remedy to terrarism is to address the conditions (more often than not: poverty and ignorance) that "feed" the behavior.

[TahitiNut]

25. As we are reminded by the military-bashers on DU, that would violate the Nuremberg Principle.

I abhor that framing ... that an interrogator could follow such an illegal (because it is, even against US laws under the hypothetical) order directly from a President Hillary.

Under the answer I offered, that can of worms isn't opened.

[mondo joe]

27. True, in your answer the can of worms isn't opened.

That's why it seems evasive.

It's a trick question. To my thinking you can answer wrong in two ways, you can evade the question, or you can answer in a way that bridges the "trick" which is what I think HRC did.

[TahitiNut]

13. Here's the answer anyone should offer, imho ...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/TahitiNut/423

It's an OBVIOUS answer that obliquely challenges the questioner's humanity and patriotism.

[nadinbrzezinski]

29. It does not work

And people know that they have to hold off for a certain ammount of time until any information is no longer useful

But the short of it, a moral people does not torture, PERIOD

[mondo joe]

8. That's the correct answer on Hillary's part.

If you were ever in such an extraordinarily unlikely circumstance as President, you do what needs to be done, and then (this is important) "the President must be held accountable".

[pnwmom]

9. Face it. She could well be the party's nominee.

And people who twist everything she says won't be welcome here anymore.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

6. Does it ever occur

to these torture turds with their ticking time bomb "24" scenario that they'd be a helluva lot better off juicing the subject with some fun drugs and having him sing like a canary?

Anybody ever had that fentynyl/versed combo they give you for outpatient surgery, where you stay awake, answer questions and then don't remember? Stuff WORKS.

What all this tells me is that the kinkazoids in the Repiglican Party and the Repiglican Wing of the Democratic Party actually GET OFF on this stuff. It's pathetic, and disturbing. They don't give a rat's ass about the information. They get a thrill at the prospect of engaging in torture. It's that simple.



Get On The H.O.R.N.!
America's Liberal Voice
www.headonradionetwork.com
and
iTunes Radio (Talk/Spoken Word)

[MannyGoldstein]

7. Yep. Seems That Way.

Jack Bauer wet dreams.

[pnwmom]

10. Are fun drugs allowed under the Geneva conventions?

Not that anyone seems to care about those pesky things anymore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. No

that's your answer.

NO

[pnwmom]

37. Thanks. I didn't think so. n/t

[GrpCaptMandrake]

38. Convention?

The freaks-in-charge "don't need no stinkin' conventions." They've made that abundantly clear.

The point, which may have evaded you, is that these monsters don't give a fig about "information." They're INTO the torture, for torture's sake.

What the seemingly endless "24" scenario points out is that the terrified, ham-fisted thugs don't care if New York (or the Eastaboga, Alabama WallyWorld, for that matter) goes up like a roman candle. They want to hear somebody SCREAM. They LIKEY.

This is the central tenet we must grasp before we can earnestly begin to come to grips with the right-wing torture fetish. The Mukaseys, Chertoffs and Haydens ENJOY the prospect of water-boarding some Muslim goatherder from South Wazgrblkpxstan.

It's about the power. Not the "national security."

Until we come to terms with the inherent villainy of the folks running the circus, we can't begin to circumscribe that villainy. That's all.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. GOOD

Nobody, politico or not, should agree with torture... PERIOD

And glad to know she doesn't

And for those who do... perhaps they should volunteer to experience a little love... lets see how fast they change their opinion.. on the matter

[JMDEM]

35. Bush says the same thing, doesn't he?

Then he defines torture, or rather what it is not. Will Hillary define what torture is too, to her liking?

According to Bushco, it is not torture if it does not cause organ failure or death.

So wrapping wires around your genitals and teeth, then cranking an old hand generator producing a shock that makes your whole body convulse in sheer agony is not torture, because it does not cause organ failure or death.

This technique has been taught for years at the "School of the Americas" because it causes unbelievable pain, but minimal physical damage. So they can keep you in sheer hell, unbelievable hell, for years and years.

Rape does not cause organ failure or death.

Waterboarding does not cause organ failure or death.

Oh... but if organs DO start failing, they have a crew of doctors around to keep them from failing so that it can't be called torture.