As we have all read, the DNI memo’s recently release do show that actionable intelligence was obtained from various interrogation methods used by the CIA and others (you can read more here.) However, what has been left out of this discussion is that it appears the Obama Administration intentionally edited the memo to correspond more closely with their world view. According to the New York Times there are some odd omissions:

Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

In sum, the Administration covered up the fact that their own DNI acknowledges that these interrogation methods did indeed lead to actionable intelligence. This is why Dick Cheney has been lobbying so hard to have these memos released, because they refute claims made by the Obama Administration that these interrogation methods do not work. Welcome to the new era of government transparency.

Ed Morrisey has a very interesting quote:

We need to have an honest debate on interrogation techniques and securing America against attack from radical, committed terrorists. Conservatives should stop pretending that waterboarding isn’t a form of torture that the US has opposed for decades when used abroad, especially against our own citizens. But everyone else should stop pretending that it doesn’t work, and that we would have been safer without its use. The real question — the one Obama wanted to avoid in his cover-up of Blair’s memo — is how many American lives is it worth to say we don’t waterboard? Ten? A hundred? Three thousand? Fifty thousand, the intended result of 9/11 and presumably the Second Wave waterboarding stopped?

I think in general he is right. I know some of you think I’m a disgusting human being who should just die (according to one of our comments). However, Morrisey’s last question is particularly an interesting one, is there some figure at which even the most committed leftist would approve of the use of waterboarding? For instance, if you could, with 100% accuracy, save 1 million lives by waterboarding a known terrorist like Mohammed would you be in favor? 10 million? Preventing World War III? Is there a line? Should there be a line. I don’t know how most American’s feel, however I think a majority probably think that there is some value when it comes to saving actual lives.