Political Hotsheet
April 29, 2009 9:12 PM

Obama: Info Gained Doesn't Justify Torture

(CBS/ AP)
President Obama said tonight that the "torture memos" do not show that intelligence obtained using harsh interrogation techniques could not have been discovered through alternate methods.

In making that argument, the president was deflecting charges by former Vice President Dick Cheney that the memos that have been made public do not reflect the important information gained by using waterboarding and other controversial techniques.

"The public reports and the public justifications for these techniques, which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, doesn't answer the core question," Mr. Obama said. "Which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn't answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?"

Mr. Obama said that even though it might be harder, he still felt it was best for the long term security of the country to only employ intelligence gathering practices that are consistent with America's values.

"Part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy," Mr. Obama said.

On the issue of whether or not waterboarding constituted torture, the president was unequivocal, reiterating statements he made on the campaign trail that there was no distinction.

"What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values," Mr. Obama said. "I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices."

In making this decision, the president stated that he was cognizant that he will be judged by whether or not he successfully keeps the American people safe.

"There have been no circumstances during the course of this first 100 days in which I have seen information that would make me second guess the decision that I have made," Mr. Obama said.

The president plucked a historical example to bolster his position, noting that during the bombing of London, Winston Churchill refused to condone torture of German detainees.

"The reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people," Mr. Obama said. "It corrodes the character of a country."

Ultimately, by rejecting these interrogation methods, Mr. Obama said that the country would not only regain its status as a beacon to the world, it would also rob Al Queda of a key recruitment technique. The terrorist group, the president said, uses the United States use of such practices as a justification for killing civilians and vilifying America.

You can watch the video below:







Tags:
Obama ,
torture ,
press conference ,
100 Days
Topics:
100 Days Analysis
Share:
  • Share
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Mixx
Add a Comment See all 36 Comments
by ReallyMeanIt May 5, 2009 10:06 PM EDT
Torture is diiferent for everyone.
My wife is deathly afraid of spiders while I find the creature interesting. Locking her in a room with spiders is torture to her while I could care less if I'm in the room with it.
So barrack, it doesn't matter what methods are used as long as its doesn't leave permanent damage, when the scumbags are telling you that it's torture, then you know you're on the right track..........if they're telling you that eating broccoli is torture then make them eat broccoli until they break.....
Reply to this comment
by CLoverNYC1 May 1, 2009 3:39 PM EDT
President Obama has four years. The clock is ticking and the jury's still out on whether this was a good idea for America.

That liar Hillary had the audacity of hope to say the war in Iraq is going well.

So far President Obama has bowed deeply before a saudi king (gosh, that made everyone feel safe!) but has yet to hold significant meetings with the Israelis. He's published in his book that he would side with the muslims if things got "ugly", appointed a pro-abortionist to the post of secretary of HHS, and closed Gitmo - which most Americans in a recent poll said was not a good idea.

don't get me started on Joe Biden.
Reply to this comment
by Jay_Frank May 1, 2009 12:38 PM EDT
During the press conference, the President stated:

"The president plucked a historical example to bolster his position, noting that during the bombing of London, Winston Churchill refused to condone torture of German detainees.

'The reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people,' Mr. Obama said. 'It corrodes the character of a country.'"

Well, the President was wrong. See:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/michaeltomasky/2009/apr/30/obama-administration-torture

and

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/nov/12/secondworldwar.world

Interesting that CBS did not bother to "fact-check" the President.
Reply to this comment
by kansas1946 April 30, 2009 11:16 PM EDT
Do other countries torture prisoners? If our men and women, in the military are captured by the "enemies" will they be tortured? I think what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
**********************************

That's funny. I guess I always thought that America was better than those countries. Iraq, Iran, Lybia, Egypt, etc., but I guess you would be proud to be an Iranian and torture people. Not me. I am proud to be an American, and thank God, with this new president, AMERICA DOES NOT TORTURE.
Reply to this comment
by chyenna-2009 April 30, 2009 1:16 PM EDT
Do other countries torture prisoners? If our men and women, in the military are captured by the "enemies" will they be tortured? I think what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'm sick of hearing people whine about torturing detainees at GITMO. I'm sick of these bleeding hearts. Is Rape torture? Yes. Do we not jump up and down when a rapist, murderer and child molesters are sent to prison? Don't we clap our hands ecstatically after these pieces of ***** land in jail cause we know big "Bubba" will be up close and personal with that child molester by the time the sun sets and isn't that what most of us want and are happy about? Rape IS torture. So why aren't all these bleeding azzes staked out at all the prisons because torture goes on there on a daily basis and I don't hear anyone whining about that!!!!!!!!
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-15 April 30, 2009 10:33 AM EDT
And the religious right delivered.
Posted by hungry1968-15

So...are we to assume that you are part of the 8% of Americans that DOES NOT believe in God ??
Posted by whosaid1 at 7:24 AM : Apr 30, 2009





No - I'm one of the 15% (and growing daily) that does not believe in any god.

http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf
Reply to this comment
by whosaid1 April 30, 2009 10:27 AM EDT
Of course the last administration wouldn't release the memo's.

It's embarrassing to put it mildly, and PROVES that they KNEW they were breaking the law.
Posted by hungry1968-15

You ARE.....too stupid and naive for words !! I'll not waste anymore time with you..............
Reply to this comment
by whosaid1 April 30, 2009 10:24 AM EDT
And the religious right delivered.
Posted by hungry1968-15

So...are we to assume that you are part of the 8% of Americans that DOES NOT believe in God ??
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-15 April 30, 2009 10:23 AM EDT
you can't be this stupid !!! "the last administration" would NOT have released the initial MEMOs at all.....it's only because the memos were released by Obama that the info on INTEL acquired as a result of the "techniques" needs to also be released.
Posted by whosaid1 at 7:14 AM : Apr 30, 2009





Of course the last administration wouldn't release the memo's.

It's embarrassing to put it mildly, and PROVES that they KNEW they were breaking the law.
Reply to this comment
by whosaid1 April 30, 2009 10:14 AM EDT
f it TRULY did prevent attacks, then why didn't the last administration release the results to PROVE it?

Because torture doesn't do anything, but send intelligence agents on wild goose chases, chasing down false leads and lies.
Posted by hungry1968-15

you can't be this stupid !!! "the last administration" would NOT have released the initial MEMOs at all.....it's only because the memos were released by Obama that the info on INTEL acquired as a result of the "techniques" needs to also be released.
Reply to this comment
by Slrman April 30, 2009 10:03 AM EDT
If Cheney were not such an arrogant sadist, he would listen to the experienced people that have been saying from the beginning that information obtained through torture is unreliable and often misleading. I hope this man, Bush, Rice, and their entire administration, are indicted, convicted and sent to prison for life. If for nothing else, for shaming America.

Anyone that thinks torture is effective, let's see your proof. Otherwise admit you are liars and fools.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-15 April 30, 2009 10:00 AM EDT
hungry1968-15 - We actually agree, (/11 should have been stopped.. Ask Bill whay he didn't get it done.
Posted by guyfrompa45 at 6:45 AM : Apr 30, 2009





As far as I'm concerned - he prevented it.

Bin Laden was just waiting for an ignorant, incompetent, useless buffoon to step into the oval office.

And the religious right delivered.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-15 April 30, 2009 9:59 AM EDT
hungry1968-15 - Again amazing. Bush was warned 12 times about 9/11. That whole thing was planned right under Clintons nose. That was a total screw up by everyone Clinton and Bush included. Clinton had Bin Laden DEAD, he let hom off the hook. Give me a break, If your gonna lay blame make sure you blame all who were involed.
Posted by guyfrompa45 at 6:41 AM : Apr 30, 2009





Clinton and Richard Clarke passed along ALL of the information that they had on bin Laden.

Bush was too worried about Iraq, to focus on bin Laden, and THAT is why those planes hit the building, dummy. (He should have made "Iraq" his 2000 presidential campaign's main theme, since that's ALL he cared about.)

And if Bush was warned about the 9/11 attacks, meaning that Clinton passed on the information regarding the planning, then how is Clinton liable?

And why should Clinton have taken bin Laden into custody in 1996, other than 20/20 hindsight, some years later?
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-15 April 30, 2009 9:53 AM EDT
They could care less what you actually beleive in.Its what they think you shoud belive in according to them.

Posted by guyfrompa45 at 6:36 AM : Apr 30, 2009





Source of this BS can be found where?
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-15 April 30, 2009 9:51 AM EDT
hungry1968-15- Oh man are you an idiot. Almost eveyone in gitmo is innocent? And you know this how? ANd as for a set of balls. You wouln't know a pair if they smacked you in the face.
Attacks go back how far? Look it up moron.
They could care less what you actually beleive in.Its what they think you shoud belive in according to them.
You remember the peole jumping off the towers, the Americans that were beheadfed on video for your viewing pleasure. Shut the F up you clown You make me sick.
Posted by guyfrompa45 at 6:36 AM : Apr 30, 2009






Well let's see.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

"Since October 7, 2001, when the current war in Afghanistan began, 775 detainees have been brought to Guantánamo. Of these, approximately 420 have been released without charge. As of January 2009, approximately 245 detainees remain."

"Of those still incarcerated, U.S. officials said they intend to eventually put 60 to 80 on trial and free the rest."





775 in Guanatanamo at some point or another, with up to 585 being released.

Do we normally release "guilty" or "innocent" people?



You're not too bright, are you?
Reply to this comment
by vinnyb5 April 30, 2009 9:50 AM EDT
So Obamas feeling is that he would BET that he couldt get the information without harsher techniques, admitting that he is willing to gamble that it will work...so while attacks are being planned, he wants to be nice.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-15 April 30, 2009 9:46 AM EDT
well...there you have it....more liberal logic....

Now, lets see if he releases the "results of the torture"...my guess is that he will avoid that....unless his "base" begins to ask about it.....and his base doesn't care about the TRUTH...so they'll never ask
Posted by whosaid1 at 6:36 AM : Apr 30, 2009





If it TRULY did prevent attacks, then why didn't the last administration release the results to PROVE it?

Because torture doesn't do anything, but send intelligence agents on wild goose chases, chasing down false leads and lies.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-15 April 30, 2009 9:43 AM EDT
hungry1968-15 - That is great. My view of reality is seeing planes fly into buildings and bombs being set off to kill Americans. You view is if we play nice they'll just take their ball an go home. What a joke
Posted by guyfrompa45 at 6:20 AM : Apr 30, 2009






My view of reality is that when the president receives intelligence WARNING of the 9/11 attacks, WITHOUT torture by the way, and ACTUALLY ACTS ON IT, you wouldn't see those planes hit the building in the first place.
Reply to this comment
by whosaid1 April 30, 2009 9:36 AM EDT
Obama sad that he saw the results of the torture, and isn't convinced that ANY attacks were thwarted with the information.

So what's the benefit of resorting to disgracing America, for no possible benefit?
Posted by hungry1968-15

well...there you have it....more liberal logic....

Now, lets see if he releases the "results of the torture"...my guess is that he will avoid that....unless his "base" begins to ask about it.....and his base doesn't care about the TRUTH...so they'll never ask
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-15 April 30, 2009 9:36 AM EDT
hungry1968-15 - Bush absolutely acted arrogant and was not a great way to go about things however when it comes to getting info from these dirbags he was right on the money.
Posted by guyfrompa45 at 6:18 AM : Apr 30, 2009





Oh - you mean like the "shoe bomber"? The ONLY reason he got caught, is because the lighter wouldn't light. If he was smart, he would have went to the bathroom and lit it - then it would have went off for sure.

Or Abu Zubaydah, who gave up Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the "20th hijacker" BEFORE the torture started, and didn't give up ANYTHING afterwards?

Or the Heathrow terrorists, who were only stopped because their car hit a barricade and quit running?



Yeah - torture really helped in those cases, didn't it?


I notice that you're NOT commenting on the fact that Bush was warned about 9/11 TWELVE TIMES before the attacks occurred. How much torture was needed to get that information that Bush ignored?
Reply to this comment
See all 36 Comments

Exclusive Webshow

Mike Huckabee on GOP "rock stars," 2012, health care reform and more. Watch Now

About Political Hotsheet

Stay up to the minute on the latest news and developments from Washington, from the White House to Congress and everything in-between with the best political reporters from CBS News and CBSNews.com.

E-Mail Political Hotsheet
Follow On Twitter

Add to your favorite news reader
google
yahoo
msn
HOTSHEET ON TWITTER