CNN

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama's national intelligence director says that Bush-era interrogation techniques - which many call torture - may have worked. Dennis Blair wrote in an internal memo: "High-value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

Nat’l. Intelligence Director David Blair says interrogation techniques have hurt America's image; and the damage they've done outweighs any benefits.

Blair added that he'd like to think he wouldn't have approved such methods in the past, but doesn't fault the people who made the decisions at the time and will defend those who carried out orders they were given.

He says the information gathered was valuable in some cases, but there's no way of knowing whether they could have found out the same things using other methods. Blair says the bottom line is that these techniques have hurt America's image around the world... and the damage they've done has outweighed any benefits.

Former Bush officials have argued the interrogations were an important part of the war on terror. Former CIA director Michael Hayden says the use of these techniques "made us safer." Former Vice President Dick Cheney agrees and says he's asked the CIA to declassify memos showing what was gained from harsh interrogations.

Just yesterday, President Obama left open the possibility of criminal prosecution for former Bush administration officials who authorized this stuff. But he continues to insist that CIA officers who carried out the interrogations shouldn't be prosecuted.

Meanwhile a new Senate report shows senior Bush officials authorized aggressive interrogation techniques - like waterboarding and forced nudity - despite concerns from military psychologists and lawyers.

Here’s my question to you: If so-called "enhanced interrogation" techniques yielded results, does that make them okay to use?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Those hotly debated Bush era interrogation memos include this little nugget: CIA officials waterboarded two al Qaeda suspects 266 times. Interrogators waterboarded Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August of 2002; and they used the tactic against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-described planner of the 9/11 attacks, 183 times in March of 2003. That's about six times a day.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, seen in a December sketch, was waterboarded 183 times in a month, a memo says.

These memos show waterboarding was used more frequently and with a greater volume of water than CIA rules allowed. Time magazine suggests the use of the tactic seemed to "occasionally get out of control." Don't you wonder what they learned from Khalid Sheik Mohammed the 183rd time they waterboarded him that they didn't know after waterboarding him 182 times?

In an about-face today, President Obama opened the door to the possibility of criminal prosecution for former Bush officials who authorized this stuff. He says it will be up to the attorney general to decide whether or not to prosecute them. Up until now, the president insisted there would be no investigation of those who ordered the torture, or those who carried it out.

The president's reversal comes a day after Senator Dianne Feinstein - whose Intelligence Committee has started a closed-door investigation into all of this - urged him to stop making public promises not to launch criminal prosecutions related to the interrogation program.

There is also pressure coming from the United Nations, which says the U.S. has signed the international Convention Against Torture and is therefore required to investigate and prosecute any credible allegations of same.

Here’s my question to you: Does waterboarding two members of al Qaeda 266 times constitute a crime?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President-Elect Barack Obama has been warned of a "huge threat" from al Qaeda by intelligence leaders in the U.S. and abroad. He told 60 Minutes' Steve Kroft last night that since terrorists could try to attack the U.S. during his White House transition, putting together his national security team is a top priority.

And it should be. The presidential transition period is prime time for terrorists. In 1993, just a little more than a month after President Bill Clinton took office, there was the first attack by al Qaeda on the World Trade Center. In 2001, during President George W. Bush's first year, we had 9/11.

The director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, said last week that al Qaeda is strengthening its hub in the Pakistani mountains and building ties with militant groups in Europe and Africa.

The president-elect told 60 Minutes that stamping out al Qaeda was also atop his to-do list and capturing or killing Osama bin Laden is a critical aspect of that plan.

Here’s my question to you: How concerned are you about another terrorist attack?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

Click the play button to see what Jack and our viewers had to say. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, remember him? The incompetent boob a chorus of retired generals and admirals called on to resign because of his incompetence and inability to lead our military? He finally quit in November of 2006.

Well guess what? According to a report in the New York Times, Secretary Rumsfeld authorized a classified order back in 2004 that allows the U.S. military to carry out broad and secret attacks against al Qaeda even if those attacks occur inside countries we're not at war with. In other words, these controversial strikes of late inside Syria and Pakistan are just fine according to Rumsfeld, whether the governments or people of those countries like us waging war inside their borders or not.

Watch: Cafferty: Attack al Qaeda?

More than a half-dozen current and former military and security officials confirmed this to the New York Times. The measure gives the U.S. military the power to attack al Qaeda anywhere in the world.

Most of these attacks, when they occur, are carried out by U.S. Special Forces in conjunction with the C.I.A.

Here’s my question to you: Should the U.S. be attacking al Qaeda in foreign countries without permission?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Read the rest of this entry »