At last night’s debate, Tim Russert noted that a Meet the Press guest posed this scenario: “We get lucky. We get the number three guy in Al Qaida. We know there’s a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don’t we have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him? You could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon.”
He posed the question to Obama, who immediately ruled out sanctioning torture. “[W]hat we cannot do is have the president of the United States state, as a matter of policy, that there is a loophole or an exception where we would sanction torture,” he said. “I think that diminishes us and it sends the wrong message to the world.”
Russert turned to Biden, who agreed. Citing the judgment of 17 three- and four-star generals, Biden said, “It doesn’t work. It should be no part of our policy ever — ever.”
Then the question went to Clinton.
CLINTON: You know, Tim, I agree with what Joe and Barack have said. As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy period. I met with those same three- and four-star retired generals, and their principal point — in addition to the values that are so important for our country to exhibit — is that there is very little evidence that it works.
CLINTON: Now, there are a lot of other things that we need to be doing that I wish we were: better intelligence; making, you know, our country better respected around the world; working to have more allies. But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it’s dangerous to go down this path.
RUSSERT: The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year. So he disagrees with you.
CLINTON: Well, he’s not standing here right now. (APPLAUSE)
RUSSERT: So there is a disagreement?
CLINTON: Well, I’ll talk to him later. (LAUGHTER)
It was an encouraging moment for the whole field. At a GOP debate, given the same hypothetical, some of the candidates probably would have volunteered to do the torturing personally, but the Dems stuck to principle. Good.
There’s some question, though, about whether Clinton’s answer may become controversial.
The New York Daily News reported today that the paper’s editorial board posed a similar question to Clinton less than a year ago.
Last October, Clinton told the Daily News: “If we’re going to be preparing for the kind of improbable but possible eventuality, then it has to be done within the rule of law.”
She said then the “ticking time bomb” scenario represents a narrow exception to her opposition to torture as morally wrong, ineffective and dangerous to American soldiers.
“In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President, and the President must be held accountable,” she said.
Clinton’s campaign did not immediately respond to numerous requests for comment on the eye-popping contradiction.
I’m not sure that I’d characterize it as an “eye-popping contradiction” — it’s an issue with some nuances — but this does pose a potential problem for the Democratic frontrunner. If she used to support some kind of ticking-bomb exception to U.S. policy on torture, and now she doesn’t, it’s incumbent on the Clinton campaign to explain how the senator’s position has evolved.
Occasionally, the key story after a debate isn’t apparent until the day after. If Clinton is perceived as trying to play both sides of the torture debate, it could become a distraction — and an opportunity for her rivals.
Keep an eye on this one. The sooner the Clinton campaign nips this in the bud, the better.