Who do you believe: CIA guy Helgerson or Dick Cheney

Magdalen · Aug 31, 2009

http://pubrecord.org/torture/4329/cheney-cooperate-torture-probe-asked/

Cheney’s interview on Fox was also a platform for him to continue to misrepresent the substance of Helgerson’s report, which found that so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” or “EITs” did not obstruct any imminent terrorist attacks, as Cheney had long claimed, and the value of torturing prisoners in general. Additionally, other documents released last week Cheney had claimed would vindicate him and show that the systematic torture of prisoners produced actionable intelligence did no such thing.
The IG report noted that the use of methods such as waterboarding and whether those tactics were effective “is a more subjective process and not without some concern.”
Moreover, Helgerson told the Washington Post Saturday the work his office conducted did not permit “definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interrogation methods.”

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2009/08/30/cheney_im_very_proud_of_what_w.html?hpid=topnews

Cheney's views, though, contradict those of former CIA inspector general John Helgerson, who wrote in the report that there is no proof that such techniques were responsible for reliable information that helped in foiling terror plans.

I'm going with the spy-guy, myself.

ETA: Here's the link for the IG Report from '04.

http://luxmedia.vo.llnwd.net/o10/clients/aclu/IG_Report.pdf

If torture works, and can be justified morally as a means of protecting us against attack, how can you justify limiting torture to waterboarding? What if sticking a hot poker into a prisoner's eye would yield the location of a nuclear bomb, would you do that? If not, why not?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/dick-cheney-will-protect_b_206420.html

Don · Aug 31, 2009

Yeah, in this case I'll admit to David's Motivated Reasoning. I want Cheney to be guilty of just about anything at this point.

dclary · Aug 31, 2009

The language of your pubrecord.org quote is highly biased.

Magdalen · Aug 31, 2009

dclary said:
The language of your pubrecord.org quote is highly biased.

Yes, it is. That's why I provided a second link that supports the bias of the first link.

GeorgeK · Aug 31, 2009

I think listening to either is a waste of time because spooks deal in misinformation and nobody here will have the clearance to cut through the tripe. That said, Cheney is spookier.

rugcat · Aug 31, 2009

Don said:
Yeah, in this case I'll admit to David's Motivated Reasoning. I want Cheney to be guilty of just about anything at this point.

For once I agree with Don. My animus toward Cheney makes it just about impossible for me to be objective.

But it is worth noting that Cheney's version is self serving and he stands to gain much, where Helgerson wouldn't seem to profit either way from his testomony.

ColoradoGuy · Aug 31, 2009

rugcat said:
For once I agree with Don. My animus toward Cheney makes it just about impossible for me to be objective.

But it is worth noting that Cheney's version is self serving and he stands to gain much, where Helgerson wouldn't seem to profit either way from his testomony.

Cui bono indeed.

Don · Aug 31, 2009

I can feel the love.

dclary · Aug 31, 2009

Magdalen said:
Yes, it is. That's why I provided a second link that supports the bias of the first link.

I thought as much, looking at them.

Magdalen · Aug 31, 2009

Helgerson said he was not in "a position to reach definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interrogation methods" and that “we didn't have the time or resources to do a careful, systematic analysis of the use of particular techniques with particular individuals and independently confirm the quality of the information that came out."

But that kind of analysis misses the point. The fact Helgerson didn’t perform such a study hardly prevents us from concluding that EITs were effective. It is not the effectiveness of “particular interrogation methods” that matters. It’s whether the EITs were effective used together, sometimes simultaneously and sometimes sequentially. And they were.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/acknowledging_the_obvious.asp

I really had to work hard to find this so I hope you appreciate it Deek. Unfortunately, it's not "hard" journalism, just a blog, but it definitely is in support of Cheney!

Jersey Chick · Aug 31, 2009

Since the testimony of an FBI agent who was present during one of the interrogations supports the CIA guy - plus Dick Cheney just radiates pure evil - I'm going with CIA guy.

Off to see if I can find a link to the FBI guy...

and I'm back with said linky

well, one of them, anyway...

CACTUSWENDY · Aug 31, 2009

Well, this is just me standing out here in the field all alone, but I ain't afraid.

IMHO

None of us will ever know what all was or was not found out with or without whatever methods. That's why that even when history is written about all this it will be seen through the eyes of the ones that write it.

I know that even in a small gathering like an office many do not all that is going on. Multiply that out to the size of anything to do with National Security and the ones in the know might be just a very small handful.

We can play arm chair quarterbacking all day long, but the end of it is that we will never know all the facts. If they want someone to take the fall for something, they will do it. If they want to get on with it and get stuff done about today, then they will.

Whatever you think of Cheney/Helgerson will make no difference. I for one would just like to get going and move on. (This is my personal opinion and I'm sorry it does not agree with most of you.)

Don · Aug 31, 2009

That's ok, Wendy, you can have your opinion. It'll all work out in the end.

I can just imagine Teddy and Dick side-by-side in the flames. With any luck, they'll get Mary Jo tending the burners.

BenPanced · Aug 31, 2009

Don said:
I can feel the love.

But you never called me when you said you would!

Folks, we're still arguing about what did or didn't happen in the Iran/Contra hearings and what made Oliver North do what he did or not. By the time everything's made available under a Right To Know, it's probably going to get sealed again and we're all going to be lined up at Uncle Dick's Hot Cocoa stand in Hades, anyway.

blacbird · Aug 31, 2009

Dick Cheney is now clearly on record as supporting the concept that the end justifies the means. Kind a like that Karl Marx guy, ya know? Makes it hard to believe anything he says about anything.

caw

Don · Sep 1, 2009

Now I'm agreeing with blac. Will the surprises never end?

Well, we've got to give Cheney credit for something. He's a uniter, not a divider. :roll:

JJ Cooper · Sep 1, 2009

GeorgeK said:
I think listening to either is a waste of time because spooks deal in misinformation and nobody here will have the clearance to cut through the tripe. That said, Cheney is spookier.

I'd believe the spook.

JJ

Duncan J Macdonald · Sep 1, 2009

There are three problems with using torture to extract information.

1) It's illegal.

2) It's messy, both morally and physically.

3) The torturee will say anything to get the torture to stop. There is no veracity.

Kurtz · Sep 1, 2009

Don't badmouth Cheney he was awesome in The Bourne Supremacy

Who do you believe: CIA guy Helgerson or Dick Cheney

Did Torture Keep Us Safer?

I think Cheney is telling the truth

I think Helgerson is telling the truth

I think they are both lying

I need to read Six Days of the Condor again

Petulantly Penitent

All Living is Local

Unabashed Mercenary

Petulantly Penitent

ever seeking

Lost in the Fog

I've seen worse.

All Living is Local

Unabashed Mercenary

Petulantly Penitent

Up all night to get Loki

An old, sappy, and happy one.

All Living is Local

THE BLUEBERRY QUEEN OF HADES (he/him)

All Living is Local

.

Plotting! Not Plodding!

Fix up, look sharp.