2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumClinton Flip Flopped on Torture Too
Apparently Mrs. Clinton used to agree to some extent with Dick Cheney's ticking time bomb defense with regard to torture:
CLINTON EQUIVOCATES ON TORTURE
Daily News
Oct 12, 2006
But at yesterday's Daily News editorial board meeting, it emerged that she's not actually against torture in all instances, and that her dispute with McCain and Bush is largely procedural.
She was asked about the "ticking time bomb" scenario, in which you've captured the terrorist and don't have time for a normal interrogation, and said that there is a place for what she called "severity," in a conversation that included mentioning waterboarding, hypothermia, and other techniques commonly described as torture.
"I have said that those are very rare but if they occur there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that," she responded. "Again, I think the President has to take responsibilty. There has to be some check and balance, some reporting. I don't mind if it's reporting in a top secret context. But that shouldn't be the tail that wags the dog, that should be the exception to the rule."
Asked again about these methods, she said:
"In those instances where we have sufficient basis to believe that there is something imminent, yeah, but then we've got to have a check and balance."
A position she doubled down on after that interview:
MCCAIN TEAM MOCKS HIL TORTURE LOOPHOLE
Daily News
Oct 16, 2006
She changed this position nearing an election, which Barack Obama pointed out:
Clinton changed on torture
Angie Drobnic Holan
Politifact
Hillary Clinton "actually differed with (John McCain) by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions."
Barack Obama on Wednesday, January 30th, 2008 in Denver
Then, on Sept. 26, 2007, Clinton said something different. During a debate, Tim Russert asked her about the ticking bomb scenario and here's what she said: "As a matter of policy, it cannot be American policy, period." She said she met with military generals who told her there is "very little evidence that it works."
In the days after the debate, the Republican National Committee criticized her for flip-flopping, and Obama said he would oppose torture "without exception or equivocation," according to Daily News reports.
Did Clinton change position because of her talks with the generals or because of the "politics of the moment"? We can't see inside Clinton's head, so our ruling doesn't reflect on that part of the statement. But it is clear she changed her mind about the "ticking bomb" scenario. So we rate Obama's claim True.
Where is Hillary Clinton on torture?
Alex Seitz-Wald
MSNBC
12/09/14
Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders both have spoken out strongly since the release of the report Tuesday. The views of two other candidates likely to run, former Sen. Jim Webb and Maryland Gov. Martin OMalley, are less clear, however. Webb opposed torture in the Senate, but has been out of office for several years, while OMalley, as a governor, is not expected to articulate opinions on foreign policy.
Now a private citizen herself, Clinton has not spoken often on the subject since stepping down as secretary of state early last year. But during a conversation at the Council on Foreign Relations sponsored by HBO in June, Clinton called for the release of the Senate report, but said she did not support prosecuting CIA interrogators.
I am hopeful it will get released, Clinton said of the report, which was hung up in negotiations between the administration and Senate. I was not one of those who thought it was necessarily wise to ignore everything that had happened. I thought we needed more transparency I think the American people deserve to see it.
But Clinton continued that she didnt want people to be criminally prosecuted, people who were doing what they were told to do, that there were legal opinions supporting what they were told to do.
Related:
Robert Scheer: Go Ahead, Back Hillary Clinton and Forget All About Her Record
Twelve Years Later, Hillary Clinton Is Still Defending Her Iraq Vote
Clinton Still Backs Patriot Act
Its something that might have been called neocon ... her supporters are not going to call it that
What Hillary Clinton wants you to forget: Her disastrous record as a war hawk
Sanders contrasts himself with Clintons inconsistencies on TTP, Keystone
Vox: Hillary Clinton's flip-flop on the TPP makes no sense
onehandle
(51,122 posts)[img][/img]
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)torture program. What a dismissive thing to say about such an important issue. The OP is correct, Hillary's response to that torture question at the time, sent chills through many people who had been certain that no one our side could possibly prevaricate on such an issue.
Thanks the gods for Obama who was clear on the issue of torture and of the Iraq War.
randys1
(16,286 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)forgot that and was thrilled when Obama kept her from the WH in 2008. Worked hard to prevent someone who supported that awful war and then prevaricated on torture. Do you REALLY think people FORGET these things?
Shameful! Stop with the BASHING of people who are reporting FACTS. We remember, it's why she lost last time and will lose again this time. It's NOT the emails, or Bengazi, it's her awful record.
Uncle Joe
(58,108 posts)I never gave anybody hell! I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.
Harry S Truman
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/h/harrystrum153785.html#hkJx5wSRw05CyW3W.99
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to come here of all places and see people dismissing such awful policies as torture. Sends shivers down one's spine.
We were supposed to be the good guys. We seemed to be when it Bush/Cheney doing it.
I have had to do a whole lot of reevaluating regarding our side over the past number of years. I know I am not the only one.
Uncle Joe
(58,108 posts)In the End, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/martinluth103571.html#kOiqCstHjZz7M2BU.99
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)to blame the messenger.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)issues, issues that people do not forget, despite how much they wish we would.
I hope this question is asked in the debates. We have a right to know where those asking for the top job in this country stand on torture and private prisons and all the other neocon garbage that has so destroyed our moral authority around the world.
No way should they be allowed to bury these issues.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,110 posts)Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!
Hydra
(14,459 posts)And it's a bash to not??
portlander23
(2,078 posts)He's got his candidate and I don't think he believes she's perfect, I think he thinks she's the best option. We can differ on things without attacking anyone personally.
A far as "bashing", we have a difference of opinion. I don't think Mrs. Clinton's record has been scrutinized this election cycle. There's too much noise in the media about what Trump said about some ethnic group this week and what the Benghazi things have been imagined.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)I'm aware that he has his candidate, but if he's going to defend the indefensible, I'd like him to own it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)appreciated. I remember this and so do a whole lot of other people. You'll have to forgiive those of us who are appalled still that this country brutalized innocent people in OUR NAME and not one of them was held accountable.
I would think it appropriate NOT to 'settle down' over something as serious as this. Settling down is why right now in Gitmo people are STILL BEING tortured, people who have done NOTHING wrong, but even if they had, torture is never an option.
I am personally controlling myself right now being one of those who never stopped trying to stop these war crimes.
We need far more people to refuse to settle down when it comes to these War Crimes. Far more and hopefully that will happen.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)That torture is repugnant and the Iraq war and all of the very sick security state that followed 9/11 is a stain on the American legacy. The point of the post really isn't to argue whether or not torture is good or bad. I would find it hard to believe that anyone who posts here would support Mrs. Clinton's former position nor advocate torture.
This post is to illustrate that we're not taking Mrs. Clinton's record very seriously, because there's a lot there that not only is not great, but calls into question her recent changes in position. If you can be this fluid on torture, there's a serious issue.
This is also not to say that Bernie is perfect. I'm troubled by his position on the use of drones, especially when the Intercept recently reported that nine out of ten drone strikes kill the wrong people.
We should weigh all of this very seriously, and I think we should very closely scrutinize Mrs. Clinton's record when it comes to matters of foreign policy and war.
When it comes to the issue torture, no one should settle down, but let's not assume the worst of people here.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)I want to laugh.
But it's really not funny.
Perfect response.
Hydra
(14,459 posts)T/Y!
randys1
(16,286 posts)Juicy_Bellows
(2,427 posts)For the rain is fallin'.
Uncle Joe
(58,108 posts)Thanks for the thread, portlander.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)was the last straw. You can overcome one mistake, but that was just horrible and showed a whole other side to her.
Another reason I was and still am happy, that Obama defeated her in 2008.
Ugh!
Hydra
(14,459 posts)I couldn't believe it when people pushed back on that when I was doing my advocacy during the Bush Admin. Seriously? Torture is a political point to score??
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)so much I remember being unable to even read about it. But when Bush was occupying the WH, I never saw these excuses for torture on our side. Was it all just politics after all? Human beings, some as young as 12, really don't matter in this country?
Hydra
(14,459 posts)But I did get pushback during the Bush Admin when I was protesting and researching the torture, and it were practically a carbon copy of the 3rd way supporter tactics of today: First, we weren't allowed to talk about it because it was "not proven." Once it was proven, then it was just a few bad apples, and we were still not supposed to talk about it. Then, when we found out it was ordered down the chain, it was again just an isolated thing, and we weren't supposed to talk about it. Then we found out more about it coming from the top. "Rumors." Then Cheney blurted it out on national TV...and we were supposed to ignore it for "national unity."
I always knew the orders came from the top. Those people were never brought up on charges.
I had posts deleted in DU 2 for saying we were desecrating Nuremberg and the resulting Geneva agreements- even the mods were protecting the Bush Admin to keep things "stable." I was beyond horrified- as Clinton herself states, it was ordered, and somehow illegal orders are now no longer illegal, and people are expected to follow them.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Eta: you're being sanctimonious, according to the president
cpompilo
(323 posts)is now their friend. Wow, what you got to believe these days to be a Hillarian!
Cognitive dissidence much? Makes me very sad having read many a thoughtful, progressive post from DUers who now espouse and endorse a candidate whose views would once have been anathema to those same folks. Like victims of some evangelical cult, I think its time to call in the de-programmers.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)Sigh.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, it was "legal".
Where have we heard that before? Of course, those same excuses had to be translated from the German.
TheKentuckian
(24,936 posts)Response to portlander23 (Original post)
Post removed
Vattel
(9,289 posts)legislation to make torture unambiguously illegal. I hope she means unambiguously criminal. If so, this could be accomplished by amending the torture act and the war crimes act. Both criminalize torture, but are too vague in defining what counts as torture. This is partly because the military commissions act watered down the war crimes act to protect Bush and company from possible criminal liability.
Obama could have led the charge for such amendments when he took office, but he dropped the ball and settled for an easily revocable executive order. Too bad because he had the votes to do it. Clinton would face a more hostile Congress, but I would hope that she would at least try to do what Obama failed to attempt in spite of all his anti-torture rhetoric.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid