Hillary Reiterates Opposition To Torture

Comments (30)

Brian wrote on September 27, 2007 1:43 PM:

This may be quibbling, but Singer's statement does not seem as definitive as HRC's comment last night. Note the "based on hypothetical scenarios" qualifier. It isn't a blanket -- no, HRC will not condone torture. Rather, it is "I won't talk about doing it in terms of hypotheticals." Right? Why not just say, she will not condone torture, period?

Dilan Esper wrote on September 27, 2007 1:50 PM:

I am not much of a Hillary Clinton fan, but give her props here. She changed her position and acknowledged it, giving a plausible reason for the change.

While people flip-flop all the time in politics, much of the time they deny any change of their position and come up with convoluted explanations. Kudos to Hillary for explaining the change in simple terms.

greg wrote on September 27, 2007 2:01 PM:

I thought about the hypothetical thing too, but the thing is, laws that would make an exception to no-torture policies are always based on hypotheticals...

I think I agree she deserves credit for explaining the change

kjoe wrote on September 27, 2007 2:03 PM:

Brian has it right. Dilan has it wrong.

She probably anticipated it---and by "it", for those who believe in the importance of knowing the meaning of "it", I am speaking of the question regarding torture,---and she probably was coached by an experienced adviser, who has a refined sense of how to parse answers carefully.

Brian wrote on September 27, 2007 2:11 PM:

Greg, I see your point on laws being based on potential hypotheticals, and you are of course right. Still, it seems forced in the way it is phrased and slightly awkward -- like, it would be much easier to say after meeting with former Generals, she now believes/sees/understands/whatever that the U.S. should not torture. And in my experience, when a politician doesn't give the most straight-forward answer, there is a reason.

If you get to message with Singer again, I would be curious to know if his statement reflects a policy against toture, rather than in terms of hypotheticals.

Clinton inevitability? No thanks. wrote on September 27, 2007 2:18 PM:

Oh look.

Another Clinton flip-flop obsequiously posted by TPM Election Clinton.

Another \"unflattering\" Hillary piece overlooked by the same.

Douglas Schoen and Hillary\'s slimy pollsters

Alone, I stand united against collectivism wrote on September 27, 2007 2:19 PM:

Awwww. I think that's great. So how does she feel about "alternative interrogation methods", which are really the problem, since the US doesn't torture? Has anyone in the msm put this question to her? They should, but I'll bet dollars to donuts they won't. Bill would probably kill the question before it could get asked.

omnia mutantur nos et mutamur in illis wrote on September 27, 2007 2:29 PM:

Let "them" tout Clinton's inevitability.

Let "them" assume party loyalty above all else.

Watch "them" lose the White House again.

And deservedly so.

Cap'n Phealy wrote on September 27, 2007 2:38 PM:

Did anyone else notice how the link to this story on the TPM main page was placed right about a picture of HRC, under which was a bullet point: "Hillary: I'm Not Bill"?

Am I the only person who thinks this layout suggests that the bullet point may be a caption to the photo associated with the "HRC's position on torture" story, and that HRC was distancing herself from her husband's postion...on torture? In other words, an implication that Bill approved of torture?

Or am I just reading too much into the layout?

Richard wrote on September 27, 2007 2:39 PM:

""""ticking bomb"""""
Let us assume that scenario. A terrorist successfully positions a nuclear device in the USA and you catch him but not the bomb. Lets go for the gusto: He is a follower of Al Qeida!! This guy has planted a device that will wreck havoc in what he believes to be: The great Satan. He is committed to doing this and obviously is will do die as the mere acceptance of such a mission guarantees death. Now, after going thru all of this he is going to cough up the location of this bomb if you torture him? You don't have much time and he knows that. And he would certainly not send you o a wild goose chase. Right.
Suppose the guy says torture me and 150,000 of your countrymen will be vaporized as there 2 bombs..and I don't know the location of number 2. Torture me and I go down a martyr...and get my 71 virgins. Its all up to me. If you so much as bring a water board in this room Ill load you up with a ton a locations and you can sort it out...
In the ticking time bomb scenario He has the advantage as you only have one way to deal with that scenario...PREVENT IT...and its too late. In this scenario, using a method that has a high probability of producing a false result is quite dumb. I suppose one might also consider the fact that this guy..is in the kill zone of the bomb and what are you going to do if he tells you that? Hang around and torture him?

Outside the beltway wrote on September 27, 2007 2:44 PM:

oh no, another flip flopping northeasterner,

how many times do dems want to lose. change sides on Cubs vs. Yankees. sign onto Lieberman's get Iran bill

yikkkeess

Brian wrote on September 27, 2007 2:44 PM:

Greg, sorry to harp on this here, but I just had another thought. You are right, hypotheticals would play a part in a legislative approach to torture. But Russert's question (and a likely real-world scenario) involved Executive branch actions without a legislative check (Presidential findings and pardons). These would be issued either before or after a real event, so an answer on hypotheticals doesn't cut it.

In this light, Singer's statement is an incredible (and in my view unacceptable) dodge. We need to know the candidates' approach to torture -- and hemming it to not making an exception based on hypotheticals doesn't seem to be enough. You need to say either 'yes, it should be considered,' 'no, not on my watch,' or even 'maybe.' Singer insinuates the answer is no, but doesn't rule it out when the rubber hits the proverbial road. I think you have been spun.

bob wrote on September 27, 2007 2:45 PM:

What was so hard about that, Hillary?

By the way, even if you believe torture works (which I don't), you don't even need to codify such exceptions. If the direst of ticking bomb situations ever occurred, I've no doubt the persons-in-charge would do what they thought necessary without first asking John Yoo for a legal opinion. They would, of course, risk going to jail if they were wrong. If they were right, they would be pardoned.

Coonbug wrote on September 27, 2007 2:45 PM:

I don't see where either Dem candidate's views on torture are SAID any differently then our current Pres's words.

We just KNOW 'he' lied. We DO torture.

VictorLaszlo wrote on September 27, 2007 3:23 PM:

Props to her for coming around, but "used to be sort of OK with torture" is still a dealbreaker.

Also, what Coonbug said.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on September 27, 2007 4:04 PM:

Clinton feels USA shouldn't torture . . . That should be left for the Corporations to do . . .

stlounick wrote on September 27, 2007 4:18 PM:

These the same advisers she used to help her with that 2002 vote on going to war Iraq?

Mary wrote on September 27, 2007 4:28 PM:

What Coonbug said.

Also, actions speak louder than words. Clinton has refused to stand up and be a leader in the Senate on the torture issue and she refuses to step forward and commit to criminal accountability for everyone, including lawyers who may have conspired in the torture (or other crimes) or their cover up.

Nothing serious is coming from her - just soundbytes.

Michael Caine wrote on September 27, 2007 6:34 PM:

Clinton's answer was as clear as mud. Singer's defacto quote speaking for Clinton said absolutely nothing at all about whether she supported torture or not. All it said was that she wouldn't answer hypothetical questions about it. Only they weren't even that clear.

Upon reflection and after meeting with former Generals and others, Senator Clinton does not believe that we should be making narrow exceptions to this policy based on hypothetical scenarios.

As the bold print highlights. The question answered was not whether she condoned torture or not. It was she does not condone answering hypothetical questions about torture.

Here is the question Hillary!

Do you condone torture under ANY situation? Yes or No.

A maybe is just a weak way of saying no.

kjoe wrote on September 27, 2007 9:27 PM:

Senator Clinton does not believe that we should be making narrow exceptions to this policy based on hypothetical scenarios.

To me, it sounds like maybe.

The real answer is probably "yes, but there are some things you simply should not say aloud".

colonpowwow wrote on September 27, 2007 9:35 PM:

Ho hum. Another positive post about Hillary clarifying her position on an issue every Democrat should praise (flat out saying she does not support torture under any circumstance).

It's amusing to go down the comments watching the "did she say this?" "does this strong statement really mean it's a weak statement?", parse-parse-hedge-hedge-slice-dice until we finally end at kneejerk Hillary-hater Michael Caine asking the question that the post answered at the beginning.

See how tiresome and predictable this hate-the-Democratic-frontrunner-because-she-is-not-our-first-choice nonsense has become. And why we Hillary supporters get so angry and annoyed about it.

When Obama does the right thing, and he often does, I say "Good for you, man." If it pushes Clinton to get into a better place, even better. Same with Dodd, Kucinich, Biden, all the others (even, ugh, Edwards - when he's right, and/or does something right - well, he's just right and I'll acknowlege it.

Try it sometime as some of the earlier posters in this thread did. It isn't so hard.

As some might say:

(sigh)

Jimbo wrote on September 27, 2007 10:51 PM:

"Ho hum. Another positive post about Hillary clarifying her position on an issue every Democrat should praise (flat out saying she does not support torture under any circumstance)."

But she didn't say that, did she? She said only she doesn't support torture under any circumstances AS A MATTER OF POLICY.

The deal is this: As a matter of policy and law, torture is prohibited under all circumstances. But should a ticking time bomb scenario arise, the law could be circumvented in a number of ways: prosecutorial discretion (the government simply chooses not to prosecute the torturer), the "necessity" defense, presidential pardon, jury nullification, etc.

colonpowwow wrote on September 27, 2007 11:05 PM:

Jimbo

Huh? The post began with:

"Last night Hillary got a lot of attention when she declared her opposition to legalized torture even in extreme "ticking bomb" situations, asserting that she believes we need to adhere to an anti-torture policy under all circumstances."

Then when it was pointed out to her that she had, in statements made earlier, left open the possiblity of contenancing some exceptions in hypothetical circumstances, she reiterated upon reflection, that she really meant under no circumstances.

What a cold, calculating bitch!

Why don't you (Michael Caine can help) send her a bunch of questions tied to scenarios like you raised at the end of your post? Then when she says again, "I mean under no circumstances," you can then think of a few more hypotheticals and say, "See, she didn't address the possibility of allowing torture if Chelsea is kidnapped!"

Sheesh.

Me wrote on September 28, 2007 1:57 AM:

I loathe this picture of Hillary.

Billy wrote on September 28, 2007 7:32 AM:

Considering that the presidential race is the process through which US citizens select the top leader of our government, wouldn't it make sense to be looking for a leader? Was HRC a leader in the opposition to the use of torture on Iraqis and on Islamic terrorist prisoners? It would make more sense if Democrats who oppose the use of torture were looking for somebody who had the moral character to recognize from the beginning the obvious - that history clearly shows us that any government that tortures people deserves to be and will be destroyed.

oleeb wrote on September 28, 2007 10:36 AM:

I've always said I would vote for whoever the Democratic nominee but not after this last debate. Hillary's decision to continue supporting the war and refusal to commit to ending it is the straw that broke the camel's back. I won't vote for her even if the Supreme Court is at stake. Neither will I vote for any candidate who does not absolutely and definitely support ending the war for real and getting all of our troops out of Iraq in 24 months or less after taking office. It is obscene and disgusting to see any Democrat hedge on this issue. Her waffling on torture is also indicative of what a disaster she would be to our party and our country.

colonpowwow wrote on September 28, 2007 3:06 PM:

oleeb

I am shocked . . . SHOCKED! to hear this.

Please don't let the door hit you in the elephant on your way out of the party.

I hear Ralph Nader is accepting resumes.

And, by the way, not that it matters to you or anything, I was on the staff of the Milwaukee Organizing Committee from 1969-72 and spend time in jail three separate times for my war resistance activities.

Sorry, I didn't want to hold you up from running out to the peace demonstration.

I am ashamed.

Anonymous wrote on September 28, 2007 3:42 PM:

Well, colonpowwow, what do you think of her vote?

Me wrote on September 28, 2007 3:43 PM:

Well, colonpowwow, what do you think of her vote?

colonpowwow wrote on September 28, 2007 7:55 PM:

I disagreed with her vote on the Lieberman Kyl amendment. I disagreed with her vote on the Iraq War authorization (although I understand and accept her reasoning for it), and I absolutely hated her vote on the Patriot Act.

That said, I'm still voting for her because I think she's the best candidate with the best chance to win the presidency.

I even disagree with Russ Feingold's votes once in awhile. I'd vote for him too.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)