Romney's New National Security Adviser: I'd Torture "In A Heartbeat"

Talking Points Memo:

Retired General James "Spider" Marks, who has just been named a new national security adviser to Mitt Romney's campaign, asserted in a 2005 interview that he would readily torture prisoners to save a soldier's life or stop a terror bomb, saying: "I'd stick a knife in somebody's thigh in a heartbeat."

In announcing the appointment of Marks, the Romney campaign put out a press release emphasizing his "more than three decades of experience in the intelligence field." But according to CNN, Marks also is a teacher of "interrogation." And as a CNN analyst, he elaborated on his views of torture on the network on November 8, 2005:

Read the whole story: Talking Points Memo

Comments

[StillAmused]

10:42 AM on 10/17/2007

Let's cut through all the right-wing bloviating and apologizing... the only CREDIBLE reason for torture is because the torturer fucking ENJOYS IT.

The debate's over... the experts have spoken. Moreover, how many of the thousands of abused detainees and combatants possessed (or possess) information even APPROACHING the "ticking bomb" scenario so often dangled as a justification?

How many international operational planners do wingnut idiots believe there ARE in the loosely-organized al Qaeda, anyway?

[blackjack]

07:24 AM on 10/17/2007

There is going to be a Draft, the we will see how all you brave soles feel about torture.

[Ramirez]

07:55 AM on 10/17/2007

Makes my feet hurt just thinking about it.

[loki]

02:12 AM on 10/17/2007

He would torture in a Heartbeat, yes. But you have to know who he is talking about. He would torture Americans who complain about his leadership or capitalistic friends and contributors. He isnt talking about terrorist or anything like that.

[MoeJava]

01:52 AM on 10/17/2007

Listening to Romney for more than five minutes fits the definition of torture.

[ammitusen]

01:52 AM on 10/17/2007

WWJT?

who would Jesus torture?

[ms.understood]

01:48 AM on 10/17/2007

I think in some instances, torturing should be allowed, if not for information, just for the simple gratification of harming someone who has unnecessarily harmed others. When people participate in blowing up innocent people inside buildings or molesting children, our government should definitely torture those people, and not allow the public to know about it. Some things the government has to hide in order to protect it's citizens, no matter how they do it, especially in times such as these!

[ChicagoBob]

05:22 AM on 10/17/2007

Dear ms.understood,

Do you think?

How would you feel if they got you by mistake instead of the real bad guy/gal?

You would protest your innocence but because it was all in secrete nobody would hear you.

And then again, what about that 'cruel and unusual' thing we have in our constitution?

Your version would require a system that made no mistakes. Do you know of such a system? I thought not.

Give it some thought.

Best regards,
Bob

[IMPRISONBUSH]

01:41 AM on 10/17/2007

YOU wounder how much more the american people will take a congress that refusses to :
IMPEACH BUSH
CHARGE CHENEY
STOP GIVING BUSH EVERY DOLLAR HE WANTS WITHOUT BARGAING/
THE CONGRESS SEEMS TO FEAR BUSH HAS HE BEEN BLACKMAILING THEM WITH HIS WIER TAPING ?.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

12:36 AM on 10/17/2007

*
Romney's new motto:
"To save an American,
I would stab your thigh."
*

[RandyRanson]

12:13 AM on 10/17/2007

Beat. Beat. Beat.

[Ramirez]

11:26 PM on 10/16/2007

The torture question is tough.

Personally I would stick a knife in a guy's thigh if it saved the life of child, assuming the child was my own or that of a friend.

I wouldn't do it to save yours, though. And you wouldn't either. That would be wrong.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

12:46 AM on 10/17/2007

The problem is that you don't know whether the person you're about to stab really has info.

So let's stab away and find out.

[Ramirez]

01:07 AM on 10/17/2007

Read the question, Reason. According to the hypothetical the guys DOES have info.

Q: "If you could save the life of a soldier, rescue the hostage children; stop the next terrorist bomb by torturing a prisoner for information, would you do it?"


Okay. We've got the guy with the info. It's your child whose life we can save. I'm holding the knife and you're watching me with the ACLU on speed dial.

You make the call.

[Rockwell]

01:29 AM on 10/17/2007

Sorry the torture question is not "tough". The answer is "no". Governments that employ torture in the name of security never, ever stop with the bad guys. It always extends to the folks at home eventually. It may take a generation or two, but when your grandkids are having their toe-nails ripped out by the cops for marching in a protest parade, they can thank granny.

We Americans are ambivalent about torture because we image our good and wise government would only employe it on bad guys and then only to find the ticking bomb.

But look at the idiots we have in charge. They can't draw a straight line and you want to give them the authority to employ torture?? Are we really so naive that we think the innocent bystander, the person who doesn't know anything, the person in the wrong place at the wrong time won't be dragged off by the goon squad and "tortured until proven innocent"? Do you really think that over time a government who's been given permission by the people to employ torture won't eventually turn that tool on the people?

If it's good for the military why not have the police torture all of the suspects and witnesses to a crime to speed up the investigation? Think how much more efficiently the court system would work if we could tear out a few toe-nails in the name of Justice. Who cares if a few innocents are hurt. We'd all be safer, right?

Our founders saw the problem first hand in Europe of governments using torture, which is why they specifically outlawed it in the Constitution. And our generation has absolutely no right to throw that out because of our cowardice in the face of a threat.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

02:54 AM on 10/17/2007

In short, torture is like potato chips?

[cognate]

11:25 PM on 10/16/2007

Ron Paul has always taken a principled stand against torture, domestic spying, the war in Iraq/n, individual freedom, and putting an end to currency debasement.

Can we afford not to elect Ron Paul?

[Ramirez]

11:30 PM on 10/16/2007

Yes, we can.

[mamacat]

10:53 PM on 10/16/2007

There is a difference between what is done in the heat of battle, and what is official policy.

In the heat of battle, things will be done that would not be done in a civilised debate. If some one is shooting at you, you are certainly entitled to shoot at them, or worse.

However, once a prisoner is taken, they must be treated according to the laws of the Geneva Convention, which the U.S. is a signatory to. If the President and those around him refuse to honor the Geneva Conventions, not only are they violating international law, but they are negating our right to insist that Americans who are prisoners be treated according to the Geneva Conventions.

In the case of the chickenhawks, it is somewhat understandable that they would not understand this, since they have never put themselves or their own adult children in situations where they might be taken prisoner. It goes without saying that a chickenhawk is by definition a hypocrite.

[ResidentChimp]

12:03 AM on 10/17/2007

You'll have to point out where in the Geneva Convention that non-signatories are covered. The terrorists don't recognize the Geneva Convention. In point of fact, their are clear guidlines for determining whether a prisoner is covered and terrorists don't comply with that definition. Why do you want to give the terrorists a free ride on this?

[KnoxBlues1]

12:20 AM on 10/17/2007

As John McCain said, It's not about who they are; it's about who WE are.
If you are going to use torture, you have become a terrorist yourself.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

12:49 AM on 10/17/2007

With THAT logic, I don't know why you're not simply for gutting all suspected terrists like yesterday's tuna.

Heck, why not hook each limb up to a Humvee, and hit the gas.

What's holding you back?

[zendem1]

10:50 PM on 10/16/2007

Maybe we'll find that Mitt's views on punishment were conveyed to him by his "mittstress". Cos he has overactive mormones.

[Collielady]

09:34 PM on 10/16/2007

What does this tell you about Romney's Mormanism? More to the point, what does this tell you about religion, in general? Why are they, the believers, who wear their religion on their sleeves, so ready and willing to perform or endorse evil?

[brewhaha]

10:19 PM on 10/16/2007

Why are people, such as yourslef, who wear reason on their sleeves, the biggest retards none to mankind. Where is the Crusade? The guy would stab someone in the leg to save a child, mother or father. If that you think that is evil than you are seriously fucked up.

[LiberalnChicago]

10:25 PM on 10/16/2007

As an Ex-Mormon I want to know where it stops? Romney would also also attach electodes to my testicles to make me straight. Well he wouldn't but the help would - in a non sexual way.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

12:50 AM on 10/17/2007

none? retard?

Sheesh.

Stab away. It's for the children.

[ResidentChimp]

12:05 AM on 10/17/2007

The point is that you don't seem to know anything about the MOrmon religion or any other. Why make uninformed comments about it?

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

12:52 AM on 10/17/2007

Call me uninformed, but I am unaware of ANY religion -- not to single out the Mormons -- that has thigh-stabbing at the top of the mitzvah list.

Maybe I shouldn't have quit Sunday school.

[doinaheckofajob]

08:39 PM on 10/16/2007

The real torture is listening to how the republicon asswipes are going to fuck America if they get elected.

[elakelaiset]

11:02 PM on 10/16/2007

Shitt Romney: used vacuum cleaner salesman