Obama’s DNI nominee won’t say if waterboarding is torture.
By on Jan 22nd, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Obama’s DNI nominee won’t say if waterboarding is torture.
During his confirmation hearings, Attorney General Eric Holder clearly expressed that “waterboading is torture.” But President Obama’s nominee to be Director of National Intelligence, ret. Adm. Dennis Blair, refused to call waterboarding torture in his confirmation hearing today. “There will be no waterboarding on my watch. There will be no torture on my watch,” Blair said, “refusing to go further,” according to Reuters. Sen Carl Levin (D-MI) told Blair, “If the attorney general designee can answer it, you can too.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
What a chicken! I hope this guy eventually agrees that waterboarding can be classified as torture, even if the former president engaged in it.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:03 pmNOT AT ALL SURPRISING from someone who gave US Aid to terrorists who perpetrated a massacre…
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Obama’s DNI nominee won’t say if waterboarding is torture.»
- – Blair seems to want to avoid any subpoenas in any upcoming war crimes trials.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:06 pmI warned you people to beware of bliar but you didn;t raise a fuss till it was to late.
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:11 pmThe comments on this thread about the same subject is kind of interesting:
http://attackerman.firedoglake.com/2009/01/22/blairwaterboardingwtf/
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:29 pmBLAIR IS GOING TO BE ARRESTED INSTEAD OF BEING CONFIRMED….ANSWER THE QUESTION OR YOU DONE.. SON!
January 22nd, 2009 at 8:51 pm“There will be no waterboarding on my watch. There will be no torture on my watch,” Blair said,
Isn’t this a declaration/acknowledgement that waterboarding IS torture? At least, that’s my read on it.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:22 pmBlair comes from the military culture and he’s probably not going to speak publicly against his previous CINC.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:33 pmIt appears to me that Blair is playing a semantics game here in an effort not to condemn his colleagues who did approve torture.
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:56 pmHe said he won’t permit waterboarding; he says he won’t permit torture. I don’t see a problem that others see.
DocRock,
January 22nd, 2009 at 9:58 pmI think you may be correct: he’s still in the military – he can’t specifically condemn something his former CinC approved.
I think his words today said so, without saying so.
Question:
How many terrorists did the U.S. subject to waterboarding?
a) 1,000
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:36 pmb) 100
c) 3
d) I don’t know
Bonus question:
Name the famous new President of the U.S.A. that intends to retain the ability to use enhanced interrogation techniques should he ever need to use them on high-value prisoners.
January 22nd, 2009 at 10:37 pmCough it up, Blair — or get gone.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:34 pmBlair should be prosecuted for war crimes in relationship to the 1999 East Timor massacres, which took place during his period as head of the Pacific Command.
Apparently, Blair disobeyed orders from the Clinton administration on two occasions.
As the massacres against the pro-independence movement in East Timor became an embarrassment for the Clinton administration, which presented its simultaneous imperialist adventure against Yugoslavia as a “humanitarian mission,” Clinton called on Blair to meet with General Wiranto, head of the Indonesian military, and order him to end support for the pro-Indonesian militia. Blair instead presented Wiranto with an offer of increased military assistance and invited the Indonesian strongman to be his personal guest in Hawaii. Wiranto took this as an American blessing for an escalation of violence in East Timor.
When State Department officials learned that Blair had not delivered the message to Wiranto, they called on him to do so again. Again he refused. Only several months later, after many more independence supporters had been killed, did Blair act to cut off US military assistance to the Indonesian army.
Blair’s career also highlights the incestuous relationship between the military and the defense industry.
In 2006, the US Department of Defense inspector general determined Blair had violated IDA’s Conflict of Interest regulations by recommending the US government purchase production contracts for F22 Raptors.
Blair served as the president of the IDA, which made the recommendation, and on the board of directors for EDO Corporation, which did subcontracting work on the F22.
He received only a slap on the wrist, and there is no congressional opposition to his appointment.
January 22nd, 2009 at 11:49 pmAs long as he says he won’t do it, I’m fine with that. He does have to work on a day-to-day basis with people who have done it. The important thing is that Holder says it is.
January 23rd, 2009 at 12:26 amSen. Levin is absolutely spot on. If this man has ethical or moral or political beliefs that prevent him from stating whether or not he believes water boarding is torture, no one can afford to assume or trust what he believes.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:03 amOur government needs to follow the law, period, no exceptions, otherwise just call yourself a Republican (criminal).
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:04 amTim Vaculik Says: Question:
How many terrorists did the U.S. subject to waterboarding?
Better question:
How many detainees were tortured to death by the Bush that we know of?
A. 8
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:08 amB. 8
C. 8
Note the strong rightward tilt of our public discourse. If a Democratic Administration had been caught using waterboarding, there would be no phony debate about whether waterboarding is torture.
With the Democrats back in power, we can drop the Newspeak. We can start calling things what they are again.
January 23rd, 2009 at 7:00 amIf waterboarding = not on my watch.
January 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 amAnd if torture = not on my watch.
Then waterboarding = torture!
Not necessarily. For instance:
If hour long lunches = not on my watch.
January 23rd, 2009 at 10:50 amAnd if torture = not on my watch.
Then hour long lunches = torture!
Forget Dennis. If he can’t answer Carl Levin, how will he stand up to Al Qaeda?
January 23rd, 2009 at 11:26 amTim Vaculik Says:
BETTER QUESTION how would that be relvant to whether waterboarding is torture or NOT? Ya think how many SUSPECTS we tortured MIGHT be classified? Ya think that makes ANY POINT AT ALL? Are you freaking KIDDING ME?
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:39 pmTim Vaculik Says:
Bonus question:
Name the famous new President of the U.S.A. that intends to retain the ability to use enhanced interrogation techniques should he ever need to use them on high-value prisoners.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Even though he said STRAIGHT OUT that he wouldnt torture period? You are a liar and a fool.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:40 pmWindsor Says:
Nothing any sane person cares about. Another ignorant wignut whiner heard from. Go back to your bridge troll.
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:41 pmTheAntichrist Says: 15
I agree
January 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm