Bishop to Boycott Obama Commencement Speech
South Bend is heating up over the controversy surrounding Obama and the local bishop...Read the post2009 College Grads: We're the Lucky Ones
Why there is hope for the graduating Class of 2009, and how they can find work in a recession...Read the postBeer in Vending Machines -- What Drinking Age?
U.S. policies on drinking age seem restrictive when examining the rest of the world...Read the postHow The Press Can Remain Relevant
Is it any surprise that Obama has employed a strategy to cordon journalists that is similar to previous administrations?...Read the postBe Afraid, Cheney Warns. Be Very Afraid.
Just when you thought the Bush-era warnings of Armageddon around the corner were over, Cheney strikes again...Read the postObama: You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry...
Obama threw down his stick, spat on the floor and growled in the face of cameras -- metaphorically... Read the postObama to GOP: 'I Won, I'm The President'
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," Obama told GOP leaders...Read the postPalin Seeks $11M Book Deal, but Can She Read?
One can only imagine what Republican rising star Sarah Palin could possibly write about in her memoirs...Read the post
boston university
politics
Why Do Americans Oppose the Release of Information?
Matt Negin is now a contributor for The Cram, a student news arm of the newly launched PoliticsDaily.com. To follow his future work, click here.
In a new Washington Post poll, most Americans approve of Barack Obama's performance during his first 100 days in office.
But although the Post led its Sunday story with that finding, another response in the survey about the recently released torture memos is considerably more newsworthy. Apparently, 44 percent of the public disapproves of Obama's decision to release secret documents from the Bush administration detailing the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Fifty-three percent approved.
That key question also revealed a deep partisan divide, with three-quarters of Democrats backing the disclosure of the memos and just as many Republicans opposing the hotly debated move.
Why does access to more information fall along a partisan split? I was just as perplexed last year when I covered the Roger Clemens steroids-in-baseball hearing on Capitol Hill, and Democrats on the government reform committee harshly interrogated The Rocket while their Republican counterparts defended him. (I still can't figure out why, and Clemens has not been recorded by the FEC for any GOP campaign donations.)
But when did the issue of releasing information -- albeit from the secretive Bush administration about the sensitive issue of torture -- begin to irk conservatives? Shouldn't the availability of information be heralded by all, whether it be documents implicating a Democratic governor of New York in a prostitution ring or sexual instant messages between a Republican congressman from Florida and his congressional pages?
Whether the new information about counter-terrorist interrogations during Bush's term justifies the use of waterboarding or exposes a lack of understanding about torture methods, the very fact that the public can debate the use of torture with more understanding is valuable. Public debate without appropriate information is just yelling or pandering (or cable-news filler).
For example, one nugget from the torture memos released April 16 includes information (some in a footnote) about how simulated drowning, or "waterboarding," was used 266 times on two suspects. This news raised questions of not only waterboarding's effectiveness, but its frequent use. Advocates and critics of waterboarding can now understand better the controversial topic they're debating.
Yet even after that news has been reported, 44 percent of the public (mostly Republican but not all) still think it was a bad idea for Obama to make those documents available to be read by anyone, according to the Post poll. The question was not a matter of defending or criticizing the use of torture; it was, "Obama has ordered the release of previously secret records of Bush administration policies on the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Do you support or oppose Obama's decision to release these records?" Out of everyone asked, 32 percent "strongly oppose" the president's move, and another 12 percent "somewhat oppose" it.
One of the arguments against the memos' release is that potential suspects now have a wider view into counter-terrorist methods. (Still, fake drowning is fake drowning, whether you know it's coming or not.) And then there's the idea that because terrorists are potentially very dangerous, maybe the public doesn't want to know what it takes to get information that could help authorities prevent an attack.
These points appear to be valid, but certainly not partisan; nobody on Capitol Hill wants to make it easier for terrorists to strike. What they should want is the most information available to adequately serve public discourse.
In a new Washington Post poll, most Americans approve of Barack Obama's performance during his first 100 days in office.
But although the Post led its Sunday story with that finding, another response in the survey about the recently released torture memos is considerably more newsworthy. Apparently, 44 percent of the public disapproves of Obama's decision to release secret documents from the Bush administration detailing the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Fifty-three percent approved.
That key question also revealed a deep partisan divide, with three-quarters of Democrats backing the disclosure of the memos and just as many Republicans opposing the hotly debated move.
Why does access to more information fall along a partisan split? I was just as perplexed last year when I covered the Roger Clemens steroids-in-baseball hearing on Capitol Hill, and Democrats on the government reform committee harshly interrogated The Rocket while their Republican counterparts defended him. (I still can't figure out why, and Clemens has not been recorded by the FEC for any GOP campaign donations.)
But when did the issue of releasing information -- albeit from the secretive Bush administration about the sensitive issue of torture -- begin to irk conservatives? Shouldn't the availability of information be heralded by all, whether it be documents implicating a Democratic governor of New York in a prostitution ring or sexual instant messages between a Republican congressman from Florida and his congressional pages?
Whether the new information about counter-terrorist interrogations during Bush's term justifies the use of waterboarding or exposes a lack of understanding about torture methods, the very fact that the public can debate the use of torture with more understanding is valuable. Public debate without appropriate information is just yelling or pandering (or cable-news filler).
For example, one nugget from the torture memos released April 16 includes information (some in a footnote) about how simulated drowning, or "waterboarding," was used 266 times on two suspects. This news raised questions of not only waterboarding's effectiveness, but its frequent use. Advocates and critics of waterboarding can now understand better the controversial topic they're debating.
Yet even after that news has been reported, 44 percent of the public (mostly Republican but not all) still think it was a bad idea for Obama to make those documents available to be read by anyone, according to the Post poll. The question was not a matter of defending or criticizing the use of torture; it was, "Obama has ordered the release of previously secret records of Bush administration policies on the interrogation of terrorism suspects. Do you support or oppose Obama's decision to release these records?" Out of everyone asked, 32 percent "strongly oppose" the president's move, and another 12 percent "somewhat oppose" it.
One of the arguments against the memos' release is that potential suspects now have a wider view into counter-terrorist methods. (Still, fake drowning is fake drowning, whether you know it's coming or not.) And then there's the idea that because terrorists are potentially very dangerous, maybe the public doesn't want to know what it takes to get information that could help authorities prevent an attack.
These points appear to be valid, but certainly not partisan; nobody on Capitol Hill wants to make it easier for terrorists to strike. What they should want is the most information available to adequately serve public discourse.
Join The Discussion
Categories
Most Popular Stories »
- U.S. retailers are on sale
- The Rivalry: 145 games strong
- Slideshow: Lehigh-Laf week
- HAWKS SKIN LEOPARDS
- Macys thanksgiving day history
Recent Comments »
Page 2/6
Post Your Comments Below
Previous 20 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments
Jerry
7:28PM 7:28PM Apr 27th 2009
This isn't about our enemies rights or feeling sorry for them. This is about how we want to conduct ourselves.
Rating :
Report!
George
4:26PM 4:26PM Apr 28th 2009
I think a little socialism might be good for a while since conservatism has made the difference between rich and poor so large or wide these last eight years. I think we need to be in the middle of conservatism and socialism both extremes are bad
Rating :
Report!
max
2:10PM 2:10PM Apr 30th 2009
Absolutely, when he releases the cherry picked memos and documents, and photos, releease the pics of all the limbs and bits and pieces of the victims of 9/11. Lets see how the liberal assholes feel then. If you need to waterboard to get info to make sure this doesn;t happen, or to stop an impending attack, it needs to be done. There needs to be a deterrant for these terrorists, and right now Obama has made us weak with his presence as President. He is not strong, no one fears us anymore with him at the helm. Take a look at N.Korea right now, they are flaunting their weapons, and know no one will do anything regardless of what they do. Hilary is like a lap dog behind her master, she has no backbone anymore, she's just glad to be sitting at the table and being fed the scraps. I guess thats all she's ever got from Bill so is used to it. Obama is not a leader, he's a naive pleaser, and easily lead. God help us all!
Rating :
Report!
Michelle
6:48PM 6:48PM Apr 29th 2009
We all want and demand that the military, the police, and the gov't keep us safe. We don't want people flying airplanes into our towers, we don't want to be blown up by suicide bombers, we don't want gangs terrorizing our neighborhoods selling their crack. That's all well and good, but then people say..."they have rights", "We need to be kinder and gentler", "You can't lie to them to find the killer", on and on we go. No Waterboarding.....Don't kill any civilians.... Get real people. There is no such thing as a kind WAR! You don't want to get your hands dirty, but you want that bully stopped and kicked out of your sand box. Freedom has never been free and if you think you can talk rationally and nicely to these groups, whether it's the suicide bomber or the local drug dealer and get him to cease his way's, you just go right ahead and do it. Maybe he'll tell you where Obama is hiding out.... Get back to me and let me know how it went for you.
Rating :
Report!
Annee
11:06PM 11:06PM Apr 26th 2009
Why would people object to information? Well, doofus, it's simple. If you let your enemies know just how far you are willing to go, you'll NEVER get any information from them. DUH! Dirty bomb coming to your neighborhood via Pakistan any day now.
Besides, it wasn't about "information" or "transperancy". It was about politics as usual, and wagging the dog. Got to give those Tea Party people something else to think about. Got to deflect attention away from this most eloquent and incompetent President.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
jan
11:21PM 11:21PM Apr 26th 2009
The last eight years were a time of unprecedented secrecy and self-servingness in the WH. It brought our nation to a new low. It's true, we need the facts and we need an open and lively debate about the subject. Those who think this is giving anything away to our enemies drastically underestimate their sophistication.
They don't fear our show of power; they fear our ideas. Shall we now betray those ideas and ideals for a phony sense of safety?
Those who think Bush kept us safe haven't kept up with people and developments in the greater world. They seem blissfully unaware of the effect of our every word and action on people everywhere, and on what's going through the heads of the various peoples who make up the Middle East particularly. It's worth studying, and fortunately we have a President who believes in doing homework.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Uncla Al
11:46PM 11:46PM Apr 26th 2009
The republican congress spent $60 million finding out about Clintons BJ. What is wrong with finding out about violating the Constitution and the Geneva convention? Slick willie broke a moral law with his wife. Bush broke national and world laws.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Rick
5:13PM 5:13PM Apr 27th 2009
UncleAl,
I know you guys like to rewrite history Pres. Clinton was not tried for a B.J. it was lying under oath!! Why do you think politicians won't be put under oath!! There on a fishing expedition when questioning you!!
Rating :
Report!
uscyeahright
11:56PM 11:56PM Apr 26th 2009
Mr. Negrin,
YOU are a f*cking dumb ass.
Let me spell it out for you.
Who, with half a brain, is going to want to work for the CIA now, you know, the people that defend us from these lunatic radical terrorists?
These actions by B.O. are fueliing the fire for another attack. Our enemies are chomping at the bit. Keep it up B.O.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
ictruth
1:29AM 1:29AM Apr 27th 2009
you obviously have no passion towards your beliefs and or survival. if you did you would understand they don't care how far we are will to go. no matter what america is prepared to do to get information it will never compare to the sacrafice they are willing to give for the very purpose for which they exist.
one more thing, they are only called terrorists because they terrorize you, to others they are noble heros. the flip side of the coin is the ones we call heros they say otherwise...
Rating :
Report!
uscyeahright
7:05AM 7:05AM Apr 27th 2009
If I had no passion towards my beliefs, I wouldn't be posting here. I can't believe how pie in the sky some thinking in our country gets. It's scary.
Rating :
Report!
Anton
1:35AM 1:35AM Apr 27th 2009
Uncla Al...Don't ya think Obama is also breaking National, World Laws? What is wrong in finding out if Obama violated the US Constitution? Don't ya think congress outa spend $100 million finding out about Obama's secret's? Let the honest truth come forward about Obama.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Truth
2:37AM 2:37AM Apr 27th 2009
It's a partisan witch hunt.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Truth
2:55PM 2:55PM Apr 27th 2009
Truth,
Good point, you're brilliant! Why don't we ever hear the news media, bloggers, or democrats talk about Bill Clintons use of extraordinary rendition, aka torture by proxy? The suspects that were rendered were far more severely tortured than waterboarding at Club Gitmo. Google ACLU extraordinary rendition.
Rating :
Report!
Chap
3:54AM 3:54AM Apr 27th 2009
Part of the objection here is the witch hunt mentality designed to punish only members of one party. Don't forget that "torturing" terrorist started with the Clinton administration and was much harsher. Men were beat for days until bones were broken, shocked with electrodes attached to numerous body parts including the genitals, made to stand for days in knee deep sewerage, hung by their limbs and after it was done killed by hanging.
Are we going to call out the Clinton administration for these far greater atrocities. How about the congress members that were briefed about these activities during both administrations. Should they not be held accountable as accessories to these crimes. This is a partisan circus with the intent of discrediting only members of one party while ignoring the equal and greater culpability of their own party. This sets a dangerous precedent that will inhibit future administrations' ability to respond to extraordinary circumstance. Congressional briefings are suppose to provide oversight on these kinds of things when public release of information harms national security. If laws were violated with congressional knowledge then they are as culpable as the Clinton and Bush officials that also approved the methods.
The people who support this are not interested in the full truth. They just want a little piece that allows them to selectively implicate those they have a vendetta against. It's hard to quote the constitution while supporting selective justice.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Chap
4:06AM 4:06AM Apr 27th 2009
Part of the objection here is the witch hunt mentality designed to punish only members of one party. Don't forget that "torturing" terrorist started with the Clinton administration and was much harsher. Men were beat for days until bones were broken, shocked with electrodes attached to numerous body parts including the genitals, made to stand for days in knee deep sewerage, hung by their limbs and after it was done killed by hanging.
Are we going to call out the Clinton administration for these far greater atrocities. How about the congress members that were briefed about these activities during both administrations. Should they not be held accountable as accessories to these crimes. This is a partisan circus with the intent of discrediting only members of one party while ignoring the equal and greater culpability of their own party. This sets a dangerous precedent that will inhibit future administrations' ability to respond to extraordinary circumstance. Congressional briefings are suppose to provide oversight on these kinds of things when public release of information harms national security. If laws were violated with congressional knowledge then they are as culpable as the Clinton and Bush officials that also approved the methods.
The people who support this are not interested in the full truth. They just want a little piece that allows them to selectively implicate those they have a vendetta against. It's hard to quote the constitution while supporting selective justice.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
dkrudop
7:21AM 7:21AM Apr 27th 2009
Let's see. There have been occasions where the Supreme Court has determined that laws passed by Congress at the Federal level or by several of the States were unconstitutional. Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, those laws were effectively determined to be violations of the law. Should not all those involved in that violation of the law be prosecuted? Especially the legal staffs who reviewed the legislation? After all, they provided legal advice that was later shown to be in violation of the law.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
truth
3:24PM 3:24PM Apr 27th 2009
Here is the core issue on prosecuting people for torture. The relevant Supreme Court precedent is cited in this excerpt from an article on this issue
by Stuart Taylor Jr. in National Journal:
"Even terrorists are protected, on the other hand, by the U.N. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It protects everyone in the world, with no exceptions.
The Convention defines "torture" narrowly, as deliberate infliction of "severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental." And when the Senate ratified the treaty in 1994, the United States specified that torture included only such "universally condemned" methods as "sustained systematic beating, application of electric currents to sensitive parts of the body, and ... hanging positions that cause extreme pain."
The Senate was still more cautious in committing the United States to prevent "cruel, inhuman, or degrading" treatment (CID, in expert parlance) short of torture. It specified in a "reservation" that the U.S. promised only to prevent treatment that would violate constitutional due process rules against undue coercion or abuse of domestic criminal suspects.
Unlike the Constitution's rule against prosecuting a defendant based on evidence obtained through compelled self-incrimination, the due process rules do allow some coercive interrogation. How much? According to the most relevant Supreme Court precedent, Rochin v. California (1952), the test is whether the methods "shock the conscience," considering all the circumstances, including the importance of the information sought"
The Supreme Court judged the methods based in part on "the importance of the information sought". In other words, the exigencies of war, and and likely additional acts of terror, are considered by the court as circumstances that in those specific instances, raise the bar for what is acceptable in coercive interrogation. Much like cases of justifiable homicide, where a person has to use deadly force, or be killed. The government has some latitude when the nation is threatened, and time is of the essence.
Rating :
Report!
Chris Schultz
7:45AM 7:45AM Apr 27th 2009
The moment this Republic condones and endorses torture, we are no longer the United States. We are Rome. We are Imperial France. We are China. We are all the banana republics that ever were. Let the others be barbarians. We are unique. We are better. That doesn't mean we are weak. It means we are stronger and believe in something more valuable than some religious superstition. Shame on those who would throw away our Constitution for a temporary feeling of safety, or worse, revenge.
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
RealAmerican
7:46AM 7:46AM Apr 27th 2009
This is another waste of tax payer dollars and that is all it is. It is the sorry state of politics in the US. I would love to see where they take these polls because the people I talk to want the government to get to work doing some GOOD and could care a less about the entire torture issue. I for one am sick of politicians on both side playing games to try and better their re-election chances. Why is it that the average American can tell you what is wrong with the economy and what needs to be fixed and you don't see it being done by Washington? I would really like to see every incumbent voted out of office. Then I think we should go after them and charge them with writing a bad check....a $1.2 trillion dollar bad check!!!
Rating :
Reply to this commentReport!
Previous 20 Comments | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments