If the reports that we’re reading them their rights are true – here’s the problem …

Obama has said that he’s against the “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” used by the Bush Administration – that’s fact one.

There is undeniable evidence from several reputable sources (who are not anonymous and are completely on record) – saying that those Enhanced Interrogation Techniques compelled detainees to reveal critical information on upcoming terror plans which national security agencies used to thwart those plans – THEREBY SAVING LIVES – AMERICAN LIVES – and from many reports – A LOT OF LIVES. This is fact two.

Obama acknowledges that lives were saved through the use of EIT’s – but says that he believes we could have gotten that information from detainees using other techniques – he doesn’t elaborate on exactly what techniques he’s talking about. That’s fact THREE.

Now … I’m asking – what the kind of technique will make a terrorist talk if you’re reading him a right that says … “You have the right to remain silent?”

Isn’t this completely contradictory to what Obama said when he said we could get the information from detainees using other, “softer” forms of interrogation? How in the hell do you get any information from a detainee when you tell him he can remain silent and that – in fact, if he opens his mouth things just get worse for him??

1. You have the right to remain dead.