Torture evidence being hidden from President Obama

[Vladimir]

Intelligence work has, for a long time now, viewed "sources and methods" as not being regularly in the purview of the President. The President and advisors require information and an assessment of its accuracy, but NOT how it was collected or from whom. If they have access to that information, it is likely to leak and get someone killed. Protecting that confidentiality is vital to intelligence work.

This is the reason that Dick Armey SHOULD have faced charges over Valerie Plame and why "Scooter" Libby was not supposed to make stuff up/be evasivee under investigation. Even though Plame's cover was "aging" at best, it was NOT within the purview of those "in the know" to leak that information.

President Obama may not have been made privy to the "sources and methods" used here (and neither may his predecessor have been) based on that rationale.

However, if the subject in question has been cleared of all charges, a proper (even if confidential) inquiry into the sources and methods used -- and their legality -- may be very appropriate.

By sources and methods do you mean this: http://sourcesandmethods.blogspot.com/

Just kidding, but it is a great site.

When it comes to the "torture" debate the methods are important. The biggest argument against torture, or coercive interrogation techniques, is that the quality if information is unreliable at best. However none of this is the emphasis of this poor excuse for journalism. It is that DoD officials, who work directly for the POTUS, "blanked out" information and are preventing "Barrack Obama" (not President Obama, mind you) from knowing the truth. If he leaks information, it isn't a leak. His first and maybe only leak occurred after his Top Secret candidate briefing.

You mean Richard Armitage. He is the one who leaked Valerie's name and started the Plame game. But he's a leftie at state so who cares, right? I don't know where you got Dick Armey from.

Whether or not he was told the What and now the How is irrelevant. If he wants to know how, DoD will tell him.

Not to cut to the quick or anything. I'm willing to let the superfluous use of passive language in the thread title slide, but I can't excuse shoddy journalism.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

When it comes to the "torture" debate the methods are important. The biggest argument against torture, or coercive interrogation techniques, is that the quality if information is unreliable at best. However none of this is the emphasis of this poor excuse for journalism. It is that DoD officials, who work directly for the POTUS, "blanked out" information and are preventing "Barrack Obama" (not President Obama, mind you) from knowing the truth. If he leaks information, it isn't a leak. His first and maybe only leak occurred after his Top Secret candidate briefing.

I was reminding folks that materials are often redacted to protect sources, even from the big boss, in the name of operational security. You can argue that this is overkill, you can argue that this class of sources and methods should be treated differently in this context, etc. I was merely pointing out that the fact that a POTUS wasn't hearing HOW the information was developed was not, in and of itself, evidence of a conspiracy to deny information. It very well COULD be, but so far it's correlation not causality.

You mean Richard Armitage. He is the one who leaked Valerie's name and started the Plame game. But he's a leftie at state so who cares, right? I don't know where you got Dick Armey from.

You are correct, I meant Armitage. I had a brief moment of intellectual flatulence, please forgive me.

[Vladimir]

Easy there. No need for forgiveness. This place is so cathartic for me.