Yeah yeah, I'm hoping now that Venerable has checked in, we can actually have a discussion about the issue itself - or perhaps he agrees with Shep Smith?
thanks for thinking so highly of me. . .
frankly, i don't have much to say on this topic, other than i don't get the allusion to 1984. my concern would be that if the current administration is willing to release only some of the documents, why not go ahead and release all of the documents. . .until that time, i don't really see how one can make a truly informed decision on the merits of the information gathered via "torture." not to mention asking the obvious question about whether or not the administration only released the incriminating documents first, and are withholding the other documents for obvious political purposes.
this is all without speaking to the ethical and moral questions related to torture and what, if any, actual information they received that did stop any potential terrorist attacks. there are consequences both in inaction and action, it's simply a matter of how far one is willing to bend towards one side or the other and are willing to deal with those consequences. see, this season of 24. i, for one, am unwilling to sit here and say that i know what happened, that i know the circumstances of the situation, or that i would never approve or engage in such activity (the stanford prison experiment has pretty much
debunked the ability of any of us to make those statements).
the other thing, as rep. peter hoekstra put it in his wsj
editorial, is that congress knew about these procedures, yet continued to provide funding for these programs, and the administration released the documents over the objections of not only the current cia chief, but also 4 previous cia chiefs.
it's easy to play monday morning quarterback and pass judgment on prior acts that may or may not have actually provided information that resulted in thwarting potential terrorist acts. . .are we so willing and able to say no torture, even if there is evidence that, say, 50% of the time it provides some amount of reliable and valuable intelligence? or even 15% of the time? for my own part, i can't say yes or no, rather, there needs to be some accounting for the situation, and not be viewed in a vacuum of only ethical and moral determinations.
