Yeah, yeah, I know I spend too much time reading the Washington Post online, but good Lord, you find some crazy shit there. From their Planet War blog moderator (no, I didn’t make that name up):
President Obama’s decision to release the so-called torture memos, over the strenuous objections of many of the senior national security and intelligence professionals, may go down in history as one of the most consequential of his first 100 days. The former Director of the CIA Michael Hayden and the former Attorney General Michael Mukasey argue strenuously that it was a mistake, and that it will hurt U.S. efforts to combat terrorism. There seem to be two principal objections to the Obama decision. One is that the release of the memos “tips our hand” to terrorists so that they can better prepare against interrogation techniques. When they know our methods precisely, they can better develop counters to them.
I think there is something to this concern, but only so much; presumably, one can develop counter-techniques to the counters, and so on, and so on. Even people who know exactly what they are getting into and exactly how far the interrogator will go, report that some techniques like water-boarding are so effective that there is essentially no plausible counter.
I am far more persuaded by the second objection: that the release of the memos will spur further witch-hunts which will produce an over-cautious intelligence and national security establishment. President Obama worried about this, and that is why he took pains to say he would not prosecute intelligence professionals who acted on the basis and within the limits of the guidance in these memos. But he left open the door to go after those who went beyond the memos, and that, of course, legitimizes more fact-finding to determine exactly what was done by whom. That is how Senator Leahy, who is keen to conduct such investigations, read Obama’s statement. But, as Hayden and Mukasey remind us, the bureaucratic response to such open-ended investigations is predictable: national security professionals will be even more cautious and even more reluctant to act going forward. Will such hesitation put America at risk? Candidate Obama repeatedly said that Bush policies made America less safe. If there is another terrorist attack, and if that attack can be traced to government failures due to an over-abundance of hesitation, will the charge apply to President Obama as well? What is your view?
I oppose speed limits because they make drivers too cautious. Why have any laws, really, since all they do is induce caution in otherwise law-abiding citizens?
These “intelligence professionals” know goddamn well that waterboarding someone six times a day for a month constitutes torture. What would caution mean here, that you only waterboard him twice a day?