I've watched the debate widen over the past couple of weeks regarding the Bush administration's "enhanced interogation" / torture program, and tried to determine as best I could the talking points coming from all sides. I have been surprised to see this turn into a right-left issue as opposed to a for-against issue, but I suppose that was inevitable. So here we go:
The official narrative as told by the anti-torture camp (via McClatchy):
The Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's regime, according to a former senior U.S. intelligence official and a former Army psychiatrist.
Such information would've provided a foundation for one of former President George W. Bush's main arguments for invading Iraq in 2003. In fact, no evidence has ever been found of operational ties between Osama bin Laden's terrorist network and Saddam's regime.
Same series of events as told through the Bush perspective:
Who supports torture?
Didn't Ronald Reagan sign the UN Convention Against Torture? Yes.
Spencer Ackerman opines on waterboarding and the flaw in the ticking time bomb theory.
Via my brother in law, CNN reports that "The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey."
Turns out Condoleezza was more like Wrongdoleezza in her impromptu interview while visiting Stanford University. Scott Horton feels us in on all the details.