Home > Politics > Political Punch
Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Hillary's tortured contradictions

September 27, 2007 9:44 AM

My freshman year at Dartmouth, I attended the Republican presidential debate featuring then-Vice President George H.W. Bush, Sen. Bob Dole, R-Kan., Rep. Jack Kemp, R-N.Y., Gov. Pierre "Pete" DuPont, R-Del., Gen. Alexander Haig and Rev. Pat Robertson. I believe John Chancellor moderated.

I have a vivid memory of Bush Sr. stepping up to shake Bob Dole's bad hand, which seemed to me at the time to belie his gentlemanly reputation.

Another debate last night in Hanover, N.H., and while there were all sorts of interesting moments I don't think anyone did any damage to frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. But there's some interesting back and forth about torture.

Moderator Tim Russert asked the following to the candidates (the full transcript can be read HERE).

"I want to move to another subject, and this involves a comment that a guest on 'Meet the Press' made, and I want to read it, as follows: 'Imagine the following scenario. We get lucky. We get the number three guy in Al Qaida. We know there's a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don't we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon.'" Russert asked the candidates to respond.

"As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period," Clinton said. "In addition to the values that are so important for our country to exhibit ... there is very little evidence that it works. Now, there are a lot of other things that we need to be doing that I wish we were: better intelligence; making, you know, our country better respected around the world; working to have more allies. But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it's dangerous to go down this path."

Out came the zinger.

"The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year," he said. "So he disagrees with you."

"Well, he's not standing here right now," Clinton said.

"So there is a disagreement?" Russert asked.

"Well, I'll talk to him later," Clinton joked.

**

Two points on this.

One -- I'm not sure that Mr. Russert is fairly describing what former President Clinton said. (Read it for yourself HERE).

Asked if he would "outlaw waterboarding and sleep deprivation, loud music, all those kinds of tactics?", Clinton said he would figure out what the "generally accepted definitions of the Geneva Convention are, and I would honor them. I would also talk to people who do this kind of work about what is generally most effective, and they will -- they're almost always not advocate of torture, and I wouldn't do anything that would put our own people at risk."

Clinton then laid out the scenario Russert cited in the debate in the following context: "Now, the thing that drives -- that, that gives the president's position a little edge is that every one of us can imagine the following scenario: We get lucky, we get the number three guy in al-Qaeda, and we know there's a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don’t we have the right and the responsibility to beat it out of him?"

Clinton then added that "in 99 percent of the interrogations, you don't know those things" and "even in the military regulations, in a case like that, they do have the power to use extreme force because there is an imminent threat to the United States, and then to live with the consequences"

The president said "they could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon or could guarantee the submission of that sort of thing ex post facto to the intelligence court, just like we do now with wire taps." He said "if that circumstance comes up -- we all know what we'd do to keep our country from going through another 9/11 if we could. But to -- but to claim in advance the right to do this whenever someone takes a notion to engage in conduct that plainly violates the Geneva Convention, that, I think, is a mistake."

To sum up -- former President Clinton said yes, he would torture such a guy, the military would have the ability to do so, BUT he thinks it's a mistake to codify that scenario in law ahead of time.

So I don't know that what his wife said last night contradicts that at all.

**

Second point -- what Hillary Clinton said last night does seem to contradict previous statements on this.

In October she told the New York Daily News that ticking time bomb scenarios "are very rare, but if they occur, there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing it."

Ben Smith of the Politico, who worked for the Daily News back then, recalls that Clinton went on, saying "Again, I think the President has to take responsibility. There has to be some check and balance, some reporting. I don't mind if it's reporting in a top secret context. But that shouldn't be the tail that wags the dog, that should be the exception to the rule."

She also said, "In those instances where we have sufficient basis to believe that there is something imminent, yeah, but then we've got to have a check and balance."

Smith at the time characterized this view as  "Torture is OK as long as the president approves it, as long as it's an exception, and as long as it's secretly reported to Congress."

That's not what she said last night.

Thoughts?

-- jpt

September 27, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (10)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Hey anybody know what Clinton's opinions are today, I was not able to check!

Posted by: spock | Sep 28, 2007 3:05:41 PM

"SLIM RUSSET" the potato head and "Chrissy little bit of fascism that rudy gives us Matthews" are two BIG examples of failed news clowns who think they will move forward with the nation and even get an OSCAR gig someday. They think we don't notice when they toss up "doughnut grease cutter" questions freshly spewed out of the lower forty at FAUX NOISE and stamped for approval by Rupie "the itinerant aussie" Murdoch.

Posted by: daddy | Sep 27, 2007 4:11:52 PM

James I can agree with that. I should blame more on Bremer for breaking up the Iraqi military so quickly.

you are 100% correct with the press, and its only going to get worse!

chuck - Russert was doing exactly what Clinton wanted, He just interviewed her last Sunday and pretty much let her run a campaign ad so what was this well because MSNBC was being out for playing softball with the socialists so he had to throw in a stupid question like that. why was not Costs of her Socialized Medicine brought up and for all of them?
And other tough questions?

Posted by: spock | Sep 27, 2007 3:54:43 PM

The rhetorical tactics which Mr. Russert used were too-cute-by-half, since he blindsided Sen. Clinton and didn't summarize her husband's position fairly. If Mr. Russert is going to engage in flights of fancy with his questions, he should at least be accurate.

Nonetheless, the entire exchange overlooked the recognized effectiveness of physical torture in obtaining information. No matter whether a physical torture policy is codified or applied on a case-by-case basis, the results are simply too undependable upon which to base reliable intelligence. The person being tortured will reach a figurative, if not literal, breaking point where he will say anything, do anything, and agree to anything to make the torture stop, including providing information which may be nothing more than imagination. So, the concept of "beating the truth" out of someone is more akin to "beating the lies" out of that person.

Posted by: chuck | Sep 27, 2007 1:37:36 PM

Spock, you hit the nail on the head when you wrote: "The mistake was not going into Iraq..." However, I do understand President Bush's decision to try to fight a war, rebuild Iraq and conduct nation building all the same time. It was an attempt to soften the criticism of the war itself -- criticism from the Iraqis, Iraq's neighbors as well as from here at home. It was also an attempt to hold America's resolve during this long process. Unfortunately with the constant pounding of the negatives by the mainstream media's coverage public opinion changed rather quickly. Once public opinion shifted, many politicians placed re-election and gaining political points ahead of national security and the country's best interests.

Posted by: James Danley | Sep 27, 2007 1:18:56 PM

Didn't see much of a contradiction. The ticking time-bomb scenario where the President KNOWS there's a bomb, KNOWS the terrorist is Number Three in Al Quaeda, and KNOWS the terrorist KNOWS where it is, but has NO IDEA where the bomb is hidden, happens so rarely in real life (has it ever?) that no policy is necessary.
It's also probably true that Sen. Clinton realized that answering these silly hypotheticals only causes policy and political trouble and she's really going to try not to do it any more. But I guess you have to fill up this website somehow. And good luck with that.

Posted by: dawn | Sep 27, 2007 11:57:26 AM

cordelia525 - So how long do we wait, do we wait for Iran to build the bomb? Use it? Please let us know when we should end this nutcase rule?

Diplomacy does not work, it did not work with Hitler, did not work with Hussein

During Clinton's first run as President Diplomacy created 9 terrorist attacks against us!

The mistake was not going into Iraq, The mistake was President Bush trying to cowtail to the libs and put a civilian leader in charge so quickly. He should of allowed the military to control it.

Interestingly the libs have not screamed about our people being beheaded and tortured, or our soldiers being killed, they cry about a little waterboarding and loud music being played on terrorists. Then again they cant admit we are at war with terrorists.

Even their beloved 911 commision said we ignored the war that the terrorists had going against us through the 90's.

Clinton never answers questions straight forward, the question was straight forward, it was a yes or no answer not a ethical. It was simply if you knew for a fact the terrorist had information on a bomb that was going to kill Americans would you torture them? (not in those exact words) She danced around the question to keep support of George Soros.

Posted by: spock | Sep 27, 2007 11:54:52 AM

Hillary plays to both sides, did anyone notice that her and Bill switch sides each time.

Now see the Libs should learn what the geneva Convention says, the terrorists are not covered by the Geneva Convention nor our constitution.

If they were covered then we would be able to shoot them on site see the convention states -

Article 4 - 4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:

* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Do the Terrorists fall under any of the above? NO!

It is real nice to know if one of these libs get into office they would allow thousands of Americans to die just so they look good to the UN.

Thou they do not mind torturing our children letting them listen to Rap, Loud music and porno. Since they say all this is torture (I agree it is torture to us)

Posted by: spock | Sep 27, 2007 11:45:20 AM

Last October, Sen. Clinton also said: "In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable."

Sen. Clinton's statements of last October were more "presidential." However, her statements last night were made to solidify her base. We need a president who will speak with conviction and from the heart. Not someone who chooses words based on a targeted audience.

Posted by: James Danley | Sep 27, 2007 10:50:44 AM

I dozed off half way during the debate. From what I saw, Clinton did well, as usual. Oh and Russert was smarmy, with his "gotcha" tactics. I was glad that Clinton didn't take the bait when he posed the Iran "any force necessary" hypo. I was a little disappointed that no one turned that question around, and called Guiliani out for being overeager to apply a military solution with Iran, which is how we got into this Iraq mess to begin with.

As for the issue of torture, we're back to this "gotcha" mentality. Bill and Hillary Clinton are trying to occupy this centrist space of being the most hawkish of the doves. I think that's a legitimate space to fill. I'd rather have a hawkish dove as prez, than a hawkish hawk, if that makes any sense. So they push the envelope a little on the torture issue. I can live with that - if beating up one person saves one thousand lives, then beating up that one person is just. Bill Clinton is correct that the problem with that ethical syllogism is that no one has perfect foresight. I don't see contradictions. I see two centrist politicians struggling with difficult ethical dilemnas.

Posted by: cordelia525 | Sep 27, 2007 10:09:42 AM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS