COVERITLIVE.COM

9:02

Fred Barbash-Moderator - Good morning. The question of whether or not to air the actions and issues surrounding U.S. interrogation methods and politices in the post-9/11 environment has become an important public issue. We want to hear what you think: Is it in the public interest to let it all out? If so, what form should the airing take: Congressional hearings? A special panel? If not, why not?

Because of the importance of these questions and the controversy swirling around them this week, we are opening up Arena's live chat all morning. We want to hear what you think.

Please provide a name when you post--rather than a handle or "guest." Because we must read every comment before we post, there may be some delay in publishing your comments. Bear with us please. We will try to publish as many comments as possible this morning until noon or so.

Thanks for participating.

9:08

[Comment From Jeremy Anderson]
We need to know what was done in our name, to make an informed decision about whether those who did these acts in our name should remain in power. Our democracy's very nature depends upon the public's ability to make an informed decision. Nevertheless, I'd certainly concede that not absolutely everything can become public knowledge. We have an Intelligence Agency, and they trade in secrets. It does them disservice to reveal absolutely everything, particularly things we will continue to do.

9:10	Fred Barbash-Moderator - Thanks Jeremy.

9:13

[Comment From Stacy R]
Right now the issue is being aired in the Press so it isn't going to go away. Waterboarding is torture and torture should never happen. Reagan signed the resolution that the Bush Administration over turned so it isn't a Partisan issue, but the reaction is partisan. I am not sure that it can be investgated in a way that isn't political though.

9:14

[Comment From Dan Edie]
I am all for releasing some of the information, but what saddens me is many will point to some thwarted attempts to attack us as evidence that torture works. It's a slippery slope from there- who should we waterboard next? Another suspected terrorist? A suspect in a murder investigation? What happens if/when the next terrorist attack is from an American, like Oklahoma City?

9:14

[Comment From Jeremy Anderson]
The big thing I see confusion about, particularly in the press, is the idea that "the President" should do this or that about what is, fundamentally, a question for the Justice Department and the court system; I think we're still used to Bush-era integration of powers. I offer my kudos to President Obama for his recognizing that separation of powers this last week, and generally wish there weren't so many articles and pundit tirades on what President Obama ought to do. What he ought to do is let the courts do their job.

9:14	[Comment From Stacy R] Could an investigation be conducted with Obama pre-pardoning those involved? If so would that encourage more honesty, or more coverup?

9:15	[Comment From Joan M] I say it would encourage more honesty if he does it from the bottom up , a lot of people are afraid to tell on their very powerful bosses

9:16	[Comment From Joan M] Some of these top guys are smug, arrogant, vindictive war criminals that just happened to be born in the 1st world--- Yoo for example

9:17

[Comment From Jeremy Anderson]
Stacy, I can't say for sure whether it would lead to more honesty, but it seems like a real mistake, since the worse the crimes turn out to be the bigger a mistake it turns out to be to pre-pardon them. Also, if I recall correctly I don't think the President can pre-pardon anything. He has to, at least, say what crime he's pardoning.

Page 1 Next >