At the Guardian, Ian Cobain writes, Document shows British intelligence officers were instructed to weigh the importance of information sought against pain inflicted:
A top-secret document revealing how MI6 and MI5 officers were allowed to extract information from prisoners being illegally tortured overseas has been seen by the Guardian.
The interrogation policy—details of which are believed to be too sensitive to be publicly released at the government inquiry into the UK's role in torture and rendition—instructed senior intelligence officers to weigh the importance of the information being sought against the amount of pain they expected a prisoner to suffer. It was operated by the British government for almost a decade. [...]
One section states: "If the possibility exists that information will be or has been obtained through the mistreatment of detainees, the negative consequences may include any potential adverse effects on national security if the fact of the agency seeking or accepting information in those circumstances were to be publicly revealed.
"For instance, it is possible that in some circumstances such a revelation could result in further radicalisation, leading to an increase in the threat from terrorism." [...]
The fact that the interrogation policy document and other similar papers may not be made public during the inquiry into British complicity in torture and rendition has led to human rights groups and lawyers refusing to give evidence or attend any meetings with the inquiry team because it does not have "credibility or transparency".
At Daily Kos on this date in 2009:
Greg Sargent:
I’m told by a CNN source that the network privately pressed cable operators not to run the Media Matters ad attacking Dobbs, which pilloried his footsie with the birthers as CNN’s "Lou Dobbs problem."
Media Matters had previously booked a week’s worth of ad time on MSNBC, Fox, and CNN — during Dobbs’ show.
As Greg points out, by attempting to censor these ads, CNN can no longer claim they simply are allowing Dobbs the freedom to run his own show. If CNN thinks it's okay to squelch dissent from people who want to debunk Dobbs' birtherism, then they can't claim leaving Dobbs on the air is a principled decision.
Top Comments can be found here. High Impact Diaries can be found here.