Romney's New National Security Adviser Said He'd Torture "In A Heartbeat"

Comments (48)

r€nato wrote on October 16, 2007 1:41 PM:

"double Guantanamo" is starting to look rather milquetoast, isn't it?

"Quintuple Guantanamo times infinity!" screams Romney.

I think that it's OK to suspend Godwin's Law when it comes to the GOP field. They really are fucking Nazis.

kjoe wrote on October 16, 2007 1:47 PM:

His attitude differs from Hillary Clinton's......in what way?

Mr Blifil wrote on October 16, 2007 1:51 PM:

James Spader want to torture for a living now? Wasn't his performance in "Sex Lies and Videotape" enough torture to endure for one lifetime?

palm pilot wrote on October 16, 2007 1:57 PM:

The thing is this may be the most honest take on the subject of "torture" and the US that any fool on the hill has allowed to slip out. At least somebody is telling us what they really think and is not afraid to take the inevitable heat for it. The people of the US need to understand there is a very ugly side to war, and on the contiuum of evil, we're about a 1 and a half in comparison to Islam. Could you imagine the the reaction of the American people if we started loping off heads, conducted mass executions, assination of political figures, used chemical munitions on our own people, blew up schools and so on and so forth....wait... before you say we already do all those things....compare our actions to the scale of the Islamic States where that type of stuff is an everyday occurence? Are you nuts? Enter reality. So we made a few guys get into a naked pyramid, we put em' on a dog leash. Big deal. We take em' off to a Carribean island where they get prayer mats. Korans and the right kind of food. May not be the Hyatt but it is a clear sign of respect. What kind of respect do we get in turn? What happend to our four soldiers who got taken prisoner a few months back? Well, two came back sans head, and two have yet to be found. No burgers and shakes for them I bet. Oh I forgot we're supposed to be better than our enemy cause we are after all the great and mighty US of A. If you all here can't see the hypocracy there then I don't know what. All I can say is I've been there and I'd much rather be "water boarded" than the skin peeling, eyeball gouging, d*ck-cutting-off-and-shoving-in-my-mouth options the other side offers. Why no reporting about that? PS you folks have played the Nazi card so much it's lost all meaning.

MarcNYC wrote on October 16, 2007 2:07 PM:

After all, sometimes you need to ignore the Constitution in order to save the Constitution.

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Fraklin, Pennsylvania Assembly: Reply to the Governor, Tue, Nov 11, 1755

pontius pilot wrote on October 16, 2007 2:10 PM:

Hey, it works on television. What's the complaint?

SkippyFlipjack wrote on October 16, 2007 2:15 PM:

there's definitely some truth to this. Shades of "24" -- if you've got a guy in front of you who knows where the bomb is hidden and it's going to go off in an hour, of course you'd stick a knife in his thigh to get that information. Deal with the legality later -- priority 1 is to stop that bomb.

Two problems: One, that might not be the best way to get the info; interrogation experts would be the best ones to determine that. Two, this situation pretty much NEVER comes up. It's never so cut-and-dried. So why even ask questions like this? It's sort of ridiculous.

dob wrote on October 16, 2007 2:15 PM:

Could you imagine the the reaction of the American people if we started loping off heads, conducted mass executions, assination of political figures, used chemical munitions on our own people, blew up schools and so on and so forth....wait... before you say we already do all those things....compare our actions to the scale of the Islamic States where that type of stuff is an everyday occurence?

You might want to check your facts there, sparky.

palm pilot wrote on October 16, 2007 2:19 PM:

dob why don't you enlighten me?

john wrote on October 16, 2007 2:20 PM:

WE DO NOT TORTURE! The Denial tape ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaK3a3XSPA8

Anonymous wrote on October 16, 2007 2:22 PM:

SkippyFlipjack:

Oh Jesus, puuuleeez spare me the ticking bomb scenario for the umpteenth time!!!

Will you folks please put that one away.

It's a one in a million circumstance.

mw wrote on October 16, 2007 2:33 PM:

If enthusiasts for"Special techniques" (including knives in the thigh) are so convinced of their usefulness, then they should have no problem of proving it.

Brave souls such as PalmPilot have little to say about the stray farmer or unlucky and innocent traveler who has been scooped up, interrogated, and released(or not).And there have been many of those.

Guaranteed, for every morsel of useful info that is derived from 'torture', there is a boatload of nothing from many.

bob wrote on October 16, 2007 2:34 PM:

Let me explain Marks' reasoning for you.

1. Torture doesn't work, for an obvious reason: Humans will say anything to stop the pain or save their own lives. (Or they won't, in which case it's pointless.)

2. Even if we modify (1) to say it doesn't work in the majority of cases, it is a highly impractical tool. You can't know whether the information is correct or not until you investigate and verify.

3. Even if there's a possibility it might work, you don't want it to be legal, because the investigators will tend to use it, and torture a majority of possibly innocent people, if it's legal.

4. The few cases where it might work are so speculative and hypothetical and last-resort, you simply cannot feasibly write a law that defines when permissible to use it.

5. What you have to do is trust that the interrogators will recognize such a situation and use it if it could work, in spite of its illegality. In other words, they will break the law if the situation is so compelling that they are willing to risk the consequences if they are wrong.

Repack Rider wrote on October 16, 2007 2:34 PM:

Hairy Palm wrote: I forgot we're supposed to be better than our enemy cause we are after all the great and mighty US of A.

When did you plan to remember that?

Davis13 wrote on October 16, 2007 2:44 PM:

So we made a few guys get into a naked pyramid, we put em' on a dog leash. Big deal. We take em' off to a Carribean island where they get prayer mats. Korans and the right kind of food. May not be the Hyatt but it is a clear sign of respect.

Must be a Republican.

They change the definitions of words all the time. Now "respect" means locking a person up for years with no explanation or legal recourse. "Respect" also means solitary confinement, sensory deprivation, music at high volumes,and even waterboarding. And that's just for suspects.

Makes me proud t' be n' mercan. Yee haw.

helpknnot wrote on October 16, 2007 2:52 PM:

Hillary implied the same kind of concept, though she did so in a far more subtle and politically astute manner.

When asked if the US should use torture to get information, she responded very specifically that it should not be the 'policy' of the US to do so.

But Hillary understands as do we all at this point that the United States government does plenty of things that are not official 'policy'. Not just the US, pretty much every government in existence.

And that is the point of the ticking time bomb scenario. The issue that is really at hand is who will make the decision, and will that person accept the legal consequences after the fact.

GWB has decided to pass the authority much further down the COC than any other president in recent history. To add insult to injury, literally, he has also decided to shift the responsibility down the COC as well. Therein lies the shorterm problem. Since Pelosi says he won't be impeached, he has no reason to step up and have a Reagan moment of national apology. The longterm issue- the abusive treatment genie is hard to put back in the bottle without large scale institutional reform.

r€nato wrote on October 16, 2007 3:08 PM:

So we made a few guys get into a naked pyramid, we put em' on a dog leash. Big deal. We take em' off to a Carribean island where they get prayer mats. Korans and the right kind of food. May not be the Hyatt but it is a clear sign of respect.

so, I take it you won't mind being sent to this nice Carribbean resort by President Hillary.

Heraldblog wrote on October 16, 2007 3:19 PM:

Hairy Palm: How do you tell a real terrorist from a terrorist suspect? How many of the naked pyramid dudes were really bad guys?

You don't get it, do you?

Redshift wrote on October 16, 2007 3:21 PM:

Perhaps anyone who answers this should be asked a followup question: "If you could save the life of a soldier, rescue the hostage children; stop the next terrorist bomb by hopping on one leg and clucking like a chicken, would you do it?"

Since the antecedent is never true in either case, it makes little difference from a policy point of view, but asking about the effectiveness of torture as if it could be true is far more damaging to our country.

Jose Padilla wrote on October 16, 2007 3:24 PM:

"if you've got a guy in front of you who knows where the bomb is hidden and it's going to go off in an hour, of course you'd stick a knife in his thigh to get that information. Deal with the legality later -- priority 1 is to stop that bomb."

He'll just lie. By the time you find out he's lied, the bomb's gone off. The only purpose for torture is to make people say things that are untrue.

r€nato wrote on October 16, 2007 3:32 PM:

The only purpose for torture is to make people say things that are untrue.

actually the only purpose for torture is to satisfy bureaucratic or higher-up demands to meet 'intelligence' quotas. Plus, having tortured the suspect shows that you are really serious about your job.

Sagacity wrote on October 16, 2007 3:34 PM:

The true purpose of torture is frighten and paralyze a larger populace. It's not for information, true or untrue.

Sagacity wrote on October 16, 2007 3:36 PM:

No, the purpose of torture is to frighten and paralyze a broader populace. It's not really about information, true or untrue.

adyacent wrote on October 16, 2007 3:43 PM:

I can't believe that today, after all that the world has been through, we in the US, are discussing are trying to find a niche for torture. It is plain wrong, that's why we should not do it. Where are the religious leaders making this clear? I am a catholic, and I am still waiting for a word of my bishops on this. Torture is degrading for the tortured and for the torturer, and don't try to finesse with excuses. Many of the people who is advocating caveats for allowing torture are screaming about moral realitivism. Could you find a case of moral relativism clear than this?
Palm pilot, I don't care what the other side does, we know what we should do. Anything else is elementary school playground excuse, with the difference that this are crimes against humanity, not a school playground.

Anonymous wrote on October 16, 2007 3:59 PM:

You guys are kinda sad. People won't just "say anything to make the pain stop"...because if what they say is a lie, they know that the torture afterwards will make the initial interrogations look like a picnic.

sally palmer wrote on October 16, 2007 4:24 PM:

so we executed some japs for waterboarding during WWII -- BFD, they were freaking japs. that's almost as untermenschen as the mooslims.

Gruntled wrote on October 16, 2007 4:53 PM:

A good example of why you shouldn't answer hypothetical questions. But the question was framed as, "If you do this, then you will stop a bomb going off, would you do it?" and the guy said, "Yes." He could interpret as he pleased. So, let's interpret, "If you stick a knife in a guy's leg, and then a bomb will not go off in New York City that would kill 2 million people, would you do it?" I think lots of people would make that trade, call it what you will. The header on this post skews the quote so radically that, after reading the quote, I wonder where the editor's perspective is coming from. Seems too ready to portray Romney in a bad light and not circumspect enough to give the benefit of the doubt.

strangelet wrote on October 16, 2007 5:31 PM:

Gruntled -- You are exactly right about this particular case. The guy was asked a stupid hypothetical question to which the only possible honest answer is "yes". He also said torture should be illegal, which it should. He then made the obvious observation that, in the event of such a (supremely unlikely) hypothetical situation, we might still use torture as a last resort, even though it's illegal.

Frankly, I am much more concerned about Romney's notion that we should expand our extra-Constitutional detention camps, and the fact that he won't be explicit about what "enhanced interrogation techniques" he finds acceptable. By comparison, this ex-Gen sounds like the voice of sweet reason.

rschop wrote on October 16, 2007 5:33 PM:

Is torture ever useful in order to get information to protect Americans? Perhaps if the FBI had tortured the CIA officers prior to 9/11 that knew Mihdhar and Hazmi were inside of the US, and also knew these terrorists were going to take part in a huge al Qaeda attack the CIA had been warned was about to take place, the FBI could have prevented the attacks that took place on 9/11, attacks that killed 3000 people. If torture in this case could have prevented the attacks on 9/11, it is hard to argue against it

niftyjwn wrote on October 16, 2007 5:40 PM:

if jesus had used torture on judas.....
hard to argue against it?????

Davis13 wrote on October 16, 2007 6:01 PM:

Would you torture a child or pregnant woman if it would save a hundred other children or pregnant women? Where do you draw the line?

DallasNE wrote on October 16, 2007 6:03 PM:

Romney's political ambition is too naked.

The Geneva Accords define torture and they say nothing about "enhanced interrogation techniques". To the extent that they go beyond the Geneva Accords makes them unlawful according to the Supreme Court in a recent decision.

Not even the States Secret provision can render them legal. It can only cover them up.

When do the trials at The Hague begin?

Mark Bernadiner wrote on October 16, 2007 6:12 PM:

Bravo, Rommney, bravo, General Marks. We support you.

big time patriot wrote on October 16, 2007 6:52 PM:

I think the legaility of torture should be handled the same way as murder is. If someone kills someone, they are almost always brought to trial. But sometimes they are not convicted due to "self defense" or other legal reasons.

If someone feels they really have to torture someone, they should be willing to face a trial and defend their actions and be exonerated for good reasons.

If they aren't willing to face a trial to justify themselves, if they just "kinda think it would be a good idea to torture someone" then perhaps it would be "kinda a good idea if they didn't torture someone" unless they had a better reason.

Illegalizing torture wouldn't send people to jail it if it was really necessary, but it would stop it when people just "thought" it was necessary.

I can live with that and feel like I am on a higher moral ground than Sadam Hussein.

Bulletinizer wrote on October 16, 2007 8:01 PM:

Go Mitt, Go!

Anonymous wrote on October 16, 2007 8:14 PM:

Thanks to Bush and Hillary, Mitt can get away with this position.

Michael Lafferty wrote on October 16, 2007 8:32 PM:

As a former Army military police and intelligence officer, I can tell you without equivocation that Major General (Retired) James Marks does not speak for the US Army, nor to its historic confinement and interrogation doctrines, which have long held that such conduct is unlawful. His stated position does, unfortunately, accurately portray the positions and policies of the criminals currently in charge of the administrative branch of our government, and their handpicked lackeys such as former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

General Marks scores absolutely no points for having answered a poorly postulated hypothetical case: the correct answer is that under no conditions is torture warranted, and under no circumstances will it be encouraged or condoned. Those who engage in behavior commonly and historically understood to violate the Geneva Conventions shall be held accountable, prosecuted to the extent provided for in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and subjected to the loss of rank, forfeiture of pay, confinement and dismissal from the service.

THAT is the correct answer. General Marks demeans both the General Officer corps and all officers, warrant officers, non-commissioned officers and enlisted personnel of the US Army by making any claim to the contrary.

Michael Lafferty wrote on October 16, 2007 8:37 PM:

I am, by the way, troubled by the observation that the comments of General Marks "…would appear to be an explicit endorsement of illegal torture."

May I remind you that there is no such thing as 'legal' torture: on its face, all actions constituting torture are unlawful and illegal, by any accepted standard in international, Federal and military law.

It's really that simple.

palm pilot wrote on October 16, 2007 9:50 PM:

I'm simply comparing how we bend rules to get critical information vs. how the competition does it. And yes defending it somewhat. Is it right? Of course not. Michael Lafferty is right on in that regard. His reply above is representatiive of 99% of the US Armed Forces Intelligence protocol. But it does happen, it sometimes needs to happen and when it does there are limits that we, as a nation and as an army..whatever, will not exceed. The guys on the other side of the field have no qualms about blowing those limits out of the water on a regular basis. My only question is why is that fact not discussed here? Where's the horror in the enemy's body count (most of them are their own nieghbors)? Why aren't they labled "Nazis?" Don't hate the player, hate the game.

mollysgran wrote on October 16, 2007 9:52 PM:

"The kinds of enemies we're fighting have no sense of right or wrong. They will go to any depths to achieve their ends."

Hmmmmm. I think we could say the same for gen. Marks. I am sure that there are many Iraqi's who feel exactly the same about him.

I hate losers like Romney and Marks.

Burford Holly wrote on October 16, 2007 11:29 PM:

How well did torture work in Salem Massachusetts? Boy oh boy, we sure taught them witches a lesson didn't we? Kilt purty near two dozen of them. And you know they really were witches because they confessed under torture, so it had to be true.

You see, even in a tiny village like Salem, torture quickly ramped up to an assembly line operation that terrorized the population and only killed innocent people. Do that nationally, and you have death camps, mass graves, and garbage trucks loaded with corpses.

BJ wrote on October 16, 2007 11:51 PM:

So Romeny would consult "his" lawyer before going to war instead of Congress and his sidekick wannabe security adviser is drooling over torture..

and this is supposed to surprise us how?

He's no more crazy than Giuliani and McCain are... their all off the deep end out for power and blood.

BJ wrote on October 16, 2007 11:55 PM:

"Romney"

their = they're

I can spell, honest...

Stephen wrote on October 17, 2007 12:44 AM:

"May I remind you that there is no such thing as 'legal' torture: on its face, all actions constituting torture are unlawful and illegal, by any accepted standard in international, Federal and military law.

"It's really that simple"

That may well be so, but that was before Justice Department lawyers started arguing that the US president's constitutional C-in-C power can be used to override those kind of legal limitations. Or at least that Congress can't use its own powers to stop Executive Government from torturing people.

(And course the Administration from the president down are still denying that what happens at Guantanamo and other places amounts to torture anyway. "This government does not torture people," Bush again asserted only a week or two ago in response to the allegations in the NY Times. By that yardstick, it seems, torture is something that only Stalins, Hitlers, and Burmese generals commit. America uses more milquetoast "aggressive interrogation practices".)

Mrs. Forsythe wrote on October 17, 2007 2:13 AM:

Romney/Marks a slam dunk.Both the candidate and all 5 sons have more important things to do than to enlist-remember? no chance these lovely techniques will ever be turned on them. What was that fine distinction about "organ shutdown" about anyway ?

brantl wrote on October 17, 2007 10:09 AM:

It's funny, but it keeps being framed that "If you could do this, and it would save a city, person, whatever would you do it?" when there is never any assurance of this, when you would actually be torturing on speculation. How stupid is that?

NoOneYouKnow wrote on October 17, 2007 10:33 AM:

I think a lot of the desire for torture comes from wingnuts who suspect they're not as manly and tough as they pretend to be. Being willing to torture doesn't say as much about the victim as the torturer and his or her supporters. The wingnut operating system is fear and hate; supporting torture is a way of keeping the boogey men at bay, not the least of which is the suspicion that the S+M homoeroticism of 24 and other torture scenarios is what wingnuts really support.

Lawrence Tureaud wrote on October 19, 2007 10:09 PM:

If they want to prove how hard their resolve is, why don't they come up with some hypotheticals that really show how much they love America and hate terrorism:

I would EAT A TURD to stop terrorists.
I would CUT OFF ONE BALL to stop the terrorists.
I would TAKE IT IN THE ASS to stop the terrorists.

It doesn't take a brave person to sacrifice someone else's life.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)