Torture Report Puts Presidential Hopefuls in Quiet Mode - nytimes

WASHINGTON — In 2002, not long after President George W. Bush named him the top federal prosecutor in New Jersey Chris Christie emphatically and unexpectedly denounced torture as a means of gathering evidence.

Most of the possible presidential candidates have not plunged into Washington’s debate over the Senate Intelligence Committee’s withering report on the Central Intelligence Agency’s brutal interrogation tactics — and some are ducking questions entirely, illustrating the delicate politics of national security.

One senator who did agree to talk, Marco Rubio, Republican of Florida, criticized thepublic release of the Senate report but also decried torture as an interrogation technique.

Few would-be candidates want to be seen as defending torture, particularly in the aftermath of the graphic techniques depicted in the panel’s findings. At the same time, Republican candidates in particular do not want to be seen as soft on terrorism. The report puts one Republican, Mr. Bush, in an especially unenviable position, because it resurrects the most controversial policies of his brother’s administration.

For Mrs. Clinton, the challenge is different: She must balance her desire to be seen as tough on national security against pressure from her party’s liberal wing to not only condemn the gruesome tactics but punish those involved. The report provides an opportunity for potential Clinton challengers to stake out a position to her left — and one Democrat, Gov. Martin O’Malley of Maryland, took it.

While Mrs. Clinton has previously said she did not want to see the officials who conducted the interrogations prosecuted, Mr. O’Malley, in an interview, called on the Justice Department to name a special prosecutor to investigate.   “I think there needs to be some accountability so this doesn’t happen again,” he said.

“Look at the polling, and elected Republicans pretty much reflect where their constituents are: largely supportive of the C.I.A. program with little interest in the details, a small minority opposed as a matter of principle, but no one shedding any tears for the terrorists who got roughed up,” said Michael Goldfarb, a neoconservative strategist.

Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, issued a statement calling the report “a highly partisan attack on the previous administration” that “puts Americans at grave risk as it fuels propaganda efforts of radical Islamic terror groups and sympathizers already trying to destroy our nation.”

Of the likely Republican candidates, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, may have the most difficult balance. Approached outside his office on Wednesday, he would not answer questions. 

Mr. Bush, the former Florida governor, last week gave a speech calling for a more assertive and muscular American foreign policy, but he has not spoken out on the interrogations. His silence on the report stands in contrast to his quick response on Facebook to Mr. Obama’s executive order on immigration.  Read More at NYTimes

U.S. Tells Court That Documents Should Remain Secret 

Afghan Leader Expresses Shock at Torture Revelations