Reply #4: Broder's twisted reasoning [View All]

[noise]

Why is the burden of responsibility on Holder to overlook torture laws? Who ordered CIA and military personnel to break torture laws in the first place? Who put CIA and military personnel in legal jeopardy? That would be Bush and Cheney. The point being that high ranking officials truly concerned with the welfare of their subordinates wouldn't have betrayed them in the first place. Yet with the help of propagandists like Broder the whole issue is twisted to the point where upholding the rule of law is equated with doing "irreparable damage." That is bizarre. Why doesn't Broder mention the damage already done by the use of torture? Soldiers paying the price due to retaliation for torture policies and threats made worse by increased terrorist/insurgent recruiting. American citizens viewed as cowards who are willing to go along with criminal policies in return for claims of increased security.

The assumption is that Bush and Cheney told the truth when they claimed legal interrogation methods weren't working. The public evidence refutes their premise. This is extremely important because if this central Bush/Cheney claim isn't true it means the entire foundation of the torture program is without merit. Which in turn means Broder is defending the indefensible.