Where to draw the line on transparency is always a difficult question for a democratic nation. The latest (American) iteration of the debate concerns the recent Democratic staff committee report on the use of enhanced interrogation. Many of you have seen Senator Dianne Feinstein and her like-minded colleagues trumpeting the Democratic majority’s decision to publish its analysis of Bush era interrogation practices. But similar to the catastrophe known as Obamacare, this report is the work product of only ONE party—GOP staffers did not participate in the investigation and no Republican Member of Congress (other than Senator John McCain) is on record as supportive of the report’s conclusions. Some of you may have seen Megyn Kelly’s two-part interview with the man who had a leading role in the terrorist interrogation program, Dr. James Mitchell. For anyone interested in “the rest of the story”, these interviews are a MUST SEE. Dr. Mitchell steadfastly refutes the notion that the subject interrogation sessions lacked institutional control. He further dispels the claim of some senior Democrats that they were never briefed concerning the interrogation techniques at issue. Most importantly, Dr. Mitchell is convincing regarding a central issue in the debate: whether the enhanced techniques produced actionable intelligence. FYI: Dr. Mitchell and some Members of Congress have requested that the contemporaneous notes of all parties to the briefings be made public—the better to find out which side is telling the unvarnished truth. Not a bad idea. The American people have a right to know.
Posted on: Fri, 26 Dec 2014 14:00:00 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015