Redstate

One of the reasons our civilian intelligence services got into the condition they did prior to 9/11 was that Congress decided to place some "perfectly reasonable" restrictions around the things that the agencies could do. Senator Church led the charge for these "sensible" restrictions, one of which prohibited the CIA from being involved with people whose hands may be dirty --- human rights violations, etc.

The restrictions simply refused to accept that it you want to know what's going on down in the sewer asking the local rabbi or bishop is not likely to get you very far.

The people are the ultimate safeguard against the government.  If the Bush Administration decides to use questionable methods on detainees, it should be the people to step forward and take appropriate action.

And how do you suggest that the people do this if not through their elected representatives? If we disagree with the President's stance on handling detainees, should we all get together and write angry letters? Blast faxes? What?

If the tool available to citizens to check the power of the executive is not Congress, then what is?

The restrictions simply refused to accept that it you want to know what's going on down in the sewer asking the local rabbi or bishop is not likely to get you very far.

On the other hand, asking not-so-nicely (either directly or via the local sewer-dwelling interrogation expert) will likely get you very far indeed, but it'll likely get you to exactly where you already knew you should get. Great way to hear what you want to hear, anyway. For example:

Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi's capture was notable because it sparked the first debates within the U.S. government over how rough CIA officers could be in questioning al Qaeda members after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. That debate, involving the FBI and the Justice Department, led to the formulation of a policy under which CIA officers were given permission to use "enhanced interrogation methods" for some al Qaeda detainees.

[...]U.S. officials yesterday declined to say whether al-Libi's initial statement was made while he was being subjected to harsher interrogation measures.

The result of less restrictions? Bogus information.

In February 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency questioned the reliability of a captured top al Qaeda operative whose allegations became the basis of Bush administration claims that terrorists had been trained in the use of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq.

[...]In fact, in January 2004 al-Libi recanted his claims, and in February 2004 the CIA withdrew all intelligence reports based on his information. By then, the United States and its coalition partners had invaded Iraq.

Bogus information that the WH nonetheless presented as strong evidence for an active Iraq/al-Qaeda partnership, despite warnings from the DIA, to the point where Cheney continued to push that line even after al-Libi recanted.

Hooray for less restrictions.  

Cheney is either trying for more executive power or he wants us to be able to torture the c**p out of people to get information if he thinks it may save the lives of Americans or our allies.  I guess the answer is yes.

On the executive power side of the argument, any power he gains will accrue to the next administration as well.  This may end up giving someone like Hilary more power.  This is not such a good idea.  But on the whole I support the argument that the President has been elected and if we want him to be a leader, then we have to loosen the hobbles.  The executive should have some privileges.  As you say the people can decide if a president is going over the line.

As far as torture, I believe this administration is watching out for Americans in a way that is needed in this world and I approve of their methods in advance. I voted for them to make decisions like this, and I take it as a matter of faith that they use the most skillful people in the construct of a decision analysis for each case where torture must be considered.  (I don't believe these people take the issue with anything except the gravity that the matter truly deserves.)  If it turns out that more than just secret detainment (much less than torture IMO) is the rationale for these "black" prisons, then congress should be the body to exercise appropriate action.

I come down squarely in the "both reasons are good ones" camp.

This whole thing has me quite perplexed.  The WH goes on record to say they do not use or encourage torture.  Than what is wrong with an anti-torture bill?

And as far as executive priveledge goes, the legislature is the people's voice.  Of course that is how the theory goes.  On occasion, I think they do get the will of the people right.  I think this is one of them.  I think most Americans do like to see us held to a higher standard than those we wish to bring to justice.

we don't really need to ask what's going on down there because we may occasionally get bad info?

You should apply for the Director CIA. But please let us know before hand so I can get my family to safety.

I guess because some of us think that the Congress ought not to be setting rules to that degree of precision. In part we got 9/11 because the Congress agreed with Frank Church that we ought not to be dealing with people with dirty hands.

all the Church commission required was some sort of extra-approval, and did not impose an outright prohibition on such dealings.

may or may not require and what one gets as the actual result are not always the same thing. The Congress passes some 'well thought out' but ill-defined rule and sends it out into the world with the understanding that transgressors will be pilloried.