<div class="mini gray">Illustration by: Matt Mahurin</div>

<p>There’s been a lot of controversy over a line in Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)’s&nbsp; jab yesterday at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) over foreign policy. As Matthew Yglesias <a title="reported" id="jh8x" href="http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/thats_more_like_it.php">reported</a>, Obama drew a contrast between himself, his rival, and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) by saying the Democrats don’t need a nominee who &quot;actually differed with [McCain] by arguing for exceptions for torture before changing positions when the politics of the moment changed.&quot; Oh snap!</p>

<p><br />

<img width="165" height="165" alt="Nationalsecurity.jpg" class="left" src="/files/washingtonindependent/testing-icon-with/Nationalsecurity.jpg" /> As <a title="this" id="sks3" href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/6050.html">this</a> Politico story from the fall notes, Clinton shifted positions on torture, having previously said she would seek a legal exemption for torture in the case where the U.S. has a detainee in custody who knows of an imminent attack — the famous &quot;<a title="ticking bomb" id="zuy3" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario">ticking bomb</a>&quot; hypothetical.&quot; But she now says &quot;as a matter of policy it cannot be American policy, period,&quot; which is hardly an ironclad repudiation, since one can imagine exemptions for torture that aren’t official &quot;policy.&quot; Such are the ways in which the meddlesome priest is gotten rid of. So let’s take a closer look at torture, even in the ticking bomb case.</p>

<p><br />

When I was reporting my <a title="CIA interrogations piece" id="y.5u" href="../../../view/cia-largely-in-the3">CIA interrogations piece</a>, I talked with Mike Rolince, a longtime FBI counterterrorism special agent. To call Rolince, who has interrogated many detainees, a strident opponent of torture is to understate matters by orders of magnitude. I brought up the ticking-bomb case with Rolince, since <a title="torture advocates" id="ba3m" href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/400rhqav.asp">torture advocates</a> roll it out to make their strongest case. Rolince turned the tables on the would-be torturers: he said that torture would <i>ensure</i> the ticking bomb detonates, despite the lazy assumptions of the torture proponents, who ignorantly fancy themselves to be tough on national security.</p>

<p><br />

&quot;If a person is put under durress, coercion, or tortured, they’ll say anything, whether it’s true, false, made up, or saying what you already know,&quot; Rolince told me. &quot;Let’s say they give you — I’m making up this number — 100 [supposed] facts, and ten of them true. That’ll lead you someplace, and I would argue that you could get [those ten] some other way. But the 90 that don’t lead you anywhere, that aren’t true — how long, and at what cost, will it take for people to learn that they’re bullshit? How many people will die as a result of <i>that</i> strategy? The amount of wasted time doesn’t justify what you think you’re getting, and could get in other ways. [The ticking bomb case] is nothing but a scare tactic.&quot;<br />

Does Sen. Clinton agree?</p>