wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

What was up with Olberman using a clip from your interview with Sen. Grahm on Countdown and not giving the Brian Lehrer show it's props? Olberman gave a vague "New York public radio show" bi-line to the quote, but Brian deserves his moment in the national spotlight. Tsk tsk Keith...

Brian and producers of BL Show:

Usually, quibbling about word choice is a sign that there is no debate. But, in this case, raising a worry about Brian's presentation of the matter seems entirely appropriate.

The term "enhanced interrogation techniques" is not a euphemism for torture. It is something *other* than torture.

Every time Brian uses a term or phrase other than the word "torture" to refer to methods such as waterboarding and the like, Brian is tacitly pushing us to question whether such methods count as torture.

This is a serious error on two fronts.

1. The meaningfulness of this debate about the methods employed by the US government in interrogations depends upon the methods being torture. If the methods were merely enhanced interrogation techniques, then why all the fuss?

2. These methods ARE torture and to deny that is to become complicit in an attempt to redraw the moral boundaries. Brian is obviously aware of his power as a very popular voice on the radio and he uses that power judiciously and with full awareness of it. Consequently, it is hard to understand why, other than for reasons of delivery style which are no reasons at all in this case, Brian insists on employing terms like "enhanced interrogation techniques."

These are cases of torture, just as a clear case of racism is racism and not, e.g., a "troubling interracial interaction."

Let me make the point in short:

Brian - you are so careful when talking about race and gender and sexual identity always to tip the linguistic hat in favor of those who are at a power-disadvantage, why can't you do the same when it comes to torture?

[[Moderator Writes: A few comments have been edited or removed for violating the WNYC posting policy. Please remember to keep your comments civil and on-topic. And Peter - relax, we're just a little short-staffed this morning and haven't been able to moderate comments until just now.
Thanks!
-BL Show-]]

the hysteria about these photos and the allegations of lack of transparency are ridiculous. the usa's criminal justice system is transparent yet no one argues that crime scene photos must be made public and published in the ny times in order for justice to take place. the media needs to show a little critical analysis rather than just parroting the arguments of one side or another....

It must be said again again and again that Barack Obama has a *duty* to obey international law to which the US is a signatory and, of course, the Constitution.

Obama is now violating his oath of office. He is committing an impeachable offense and has become complicit in the war crimes of the Bush administration.

Straightforward law. And law confirmed by precedent in the United States.

This may sound like an aside, I'll call it "thinking out of the box..." When the government contains secrets like "examples where torture worked." "Outrageous pictures of detainee abuse" -- these are stored digitally, on some hard drive somewhere. Presumably there is secure technology used to contain this data.

ANY CHANCE THE TECHNOLOGY MAKING THAT EXPLOSIVE DATA CAN BE USED ON OUR CREDIT CARD AND SOCIAL SECURITY INFO?

An error doesn't become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.
JFK

If waterboarding and other torture techniques were so successful why did the CIA eliminate evidence of that by destroying the waterboarding videos?

What memo could possibly "show that hundreds of thousands of live were saved?" Who would write a memo that said, because we interrogated/waterboarded this person and obtained this particular information, we were able to stop this plot and thereby saved hundreds of thousands of lives. That's fiction. We've all been watching too much "24".

Cheney and Rumsfeld should be executed for treason and war crimes. Or at the very least, Guantanamo should be retrofitted and one-way tickets should be given to the Bush Criminal Gang. I hear from Republican Senators that Guantanamo has a nice tropical breeze year round.

I don't think it is irrelevant whether torture works or not, because it doesn't work. And it certainly doesn't work better on the 80th time than it would of on the first time.

It's also against the law. US law and international law. The legal arguments are bull.

Democracts should not hang on to the red herring being thrown by the Bush Criminal Gang regarding whether SOME Democrats were informed of their 'enhanced interrogation' techniques. They are trying to distract and scare so that the truth wont come out. So what if some Democrats were told in general terms - or in detail - about their 'enhanced interrogation' techniques (Torture), the issue is that the truth needs to come out.
As Senator Graham states, those people who were briefed could not really discuss this information with anyone. And in fact they were never given the full picture.

To clarify for listeners/readers:

It was (former) senator Phil Gramm who put in a last minute update to the omnibus budget (in 1999 i think?) that deregulated the hedge fund industry, and prevented CDO type debt from being regulated.

I agree with Hugh(6) who said it is quite amusing to see these government officials claim "I forgot".

By the way, my proposal for a Truth and Reconciliation commission would grant immunity To ALL (just like in So. Africa)
who committed crimes (whether financial -campaign donation related OR political crimes)
for FULL PUBLIC testimony (yes, even if Dick cheney comes clean).
BUt just like S. Africa, you dont testify, you are liable for punishment.

It is the ONLY way to get to the bottom of 40 years of dirty tricks in our government.

Go see my blog at sos-newdeal.blogspot.com

Incredible. When he was in office Cheney was the most secretive VP in history. Now he's turning the tables on the next administration and demanding that secret documents be declassified and released. Something he himself never did and would never have done. Total hypocrisy.

I think Cheney is fabricating the existence of these "documents," using phantom reports as justification for "enhanced interrogation techniques"(torture). When these reports fail to appear, political ideology and partisanship will permeate the discussion, acting as a smoke screen distracting everybody of the true nature of the events.

Mr. Cheney wants to justify torture using
argument that it was successful. Are we reaching new lows by even discussing it? Mr. Cheney just
does not get it!

Isn't disclosing the existence of particular classified documents, in itself a crime? Can we please put Dick Cheney in jail already? Or at least legally force him to shut his mouth?

First, Dick Cheney seems to want a very selective release of documents -- a cherry-picked selection to serve his interests.

Second, it is comical to hear Bob Graham, Nancy Pelosi and others all using the "I have no recollection" line.

We've heard plenty of that from our Government Criminals over the past 35 years.

Brian:

I said it (and told you in 2006)

We need a WAR crimes TRIBUNAL

as well as a TRUTH and Reconciliation Commission

to get through the bottom of this.

ALSO:

we need to make clear to ALL listeners that this is NOT the senator who snuck that
financial legislation deregulating hedge funds through congress on the last day of his senate career !

I cannot write about Dick Cheney without resorting to a string of expletive deleteds.

As Jesse Ventura recently said: waterboarding is torture, and it is useless.

It’s irrelevant if torture works – it’s wrong and it corrodes our society when we do it.

If Dick Cheney says that torture produced results (that he wants released), doesn't that mean that he's admitting to it? I know he says that waterboarding isn't torture, but shouldn't that be for the courts to decide because, if he was participating in the waterboarding, it would make sense that the orders to come up with legal excuses came from him, and that wouldn't be legal (would it?).

Assuming that someone in the judiciary might be trying to build a SERIOUS case against those who had the power and the responsibility to authorize potentially prosecutable actions, could the indiscriminate release of the torture documents possibly jeopardize or even prevent the future admissibility of evidence in Court?