Clinton was similarly vague about how she would handle special interrogation methods used by the CIA. She said that while she does not condone torture, so much has been kept secret that she would not know unless elected what other extreme measures interrogators are using, and therefore could not say whether she would change or continue existing policies.
”It is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing. We're getting all kinds of mixed messages,” Clinton said. “I don't think we’ll know the truth until we have a new president. I think [until] you can get in there and actually bore into what’s been going on, you’re not going to know.”
It’s really not that hard to give a straight answer to questions like this, unless you don’t want to. Hubby Big Bill probably would have said similar; remember, he’s the one, before W., who ramped the process of rendition into high gear.
Talking Points Memo appears to try to give her a pass by accusing the Post of selective quoting. So, in the blockquote below, I’ll paste her full comment to the Post, with what it omitted in italics, and then comment on that.
Question: Can I ask you a follow up? You mentioned Blackwater, you’ve said that at the beginning of your administration you’d ask the Pentagon to report. When it comes to special interrogation methods, obviously you’ve said you’re against torture, but the types of methods that are now used that aren’t technically torture but are still permitted, would you do something in your first couple days to address that, suspend some of the special interrogation methods immediately or ask for some kind of review?
HRC: Well I think I’ve been very clear about that too, we should not conduct or condone torture and it is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn’t doing, we’re getting all kinds of mixed messages. I don’t think we’ll know the truth until we have a new President. I think once you can get in there and actually bore into what’s been going on, you’re not going to know. I was very touched by the story you guys had on the front page the other day about the WWII interrogators. I mean it's not the same situation but it was a very clear rejection of what we think we know about what is going on right now but I want to know everything, and so I think we have to draw a bright line and say ‘No torture – abide by the Geneva conventions, abide by the laws we have passed,' and then try to make sure we implement that.
So, is she that much firmer against torture with this context?
No. This is exactly the George W. Bush talking point: “We’re against torture, but we don’t torture.”
Every other Democratic presidential candidate, as well as the written record of international law, identifies practices such as waterboarding as torture. Why can’t Hillary Clinton?
And, for the record, I can assure you I will vote Green if she gets the Democratic nomination.
No comments:
Post a Comment