After refusing to release even unclassified materials as Vice President, former Vice President Dick Cheney is now calling for the release of all interrogation reports to show that torture works. This is the same Cheney who supported the denial of such evidence to courts and criminal defendants and Congress. However, now that calls for prosecution for war crimes are increasing, Cheney suddenly believes in transparency in government. In the meantime, Obama has reversed earlier statements and indicated that he will not rule out prosecutions of Bush officials. We discussed this latest development on this segment of MSNBC Countdown.
“One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn’t put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified. . . .I formally asked that they be declassified now. I haven’t announced this up until now, I haven’t talked about it, but I know specifically of reports that I read, that I saw that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country. . . .And I’ve now formally asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.”
This is part of the new strategy where torture is defended because it works. This is the same argument that I faced yesterday in a debate on NPR with Professor Robert Turner, click here. The media is being sucked into this false debate, debating how successful the torture program was in extracting information. Under domestic and international law, we are not allowed to torture people regardless of how successful it might be. In the same fashion, we are not allowed to beat and torture criminal defendants like Dirty Harry with post hoc rationalizations. International treaties and cases expressly reject such claims.
In his latest round of interviews, <a href=”click here.”>Cheney added “I don’t think we’ve got much to apologize for.” As we have previously discussed on the air, Cheney is the walking example of the dangers of Obama’s policy of blocking any investigation, click here. Not only is Cheney walking around casually discussing war crimes, he is wholly unrepentant. He and others are now trying to corrupt this country’s values even further by defining the issue of war crimes as to whether they resulted in actionable intelligence.
For the Fox News interview, click here.
Buddha:
Do you think Scott was admitted to a law school not affiliated with fundamentalist religion?
Buddha,
The bell has only tolled louder and louder.
**************************************
Maybe the saying should be ” The bell has only trolled louder and louder. I wonder if you use a troll as the clapper what kind of sound would it make?
Oh where is that Quasimodo when you kneed him or her or it or gender neutral or tranny.
Was not there a book out that was call for whom the bells troll?
I guess my larger point is that people here who profess to be so concerned with individuals rights, dispense with them with people they hate politically. They appear to be only concerned with suspected terrorists rights, and to the point of almost crying while they are writing their posts. They speak of rule of law, treaties, etc. and then because they hate Cheney and Bush can’t engage in any meaningful discussion because they want, so badly deep down in their viscera, to “get” Bush & Cheney. They continually make intellectually inconsistent points depending on which party they are applying the law to. At least a few today have stated their case, based it upon some reasoning, which although I disagree with the conclusion, I can at least see the logic in it, e.g. rafflaw. Others have palpable hatred and yet try to fashion themselves as some deep intellectuals and can’t see that they have inconsistent logic, legal reasoning, or no logic.
Scott:
“I mean its such a black and white issue, so crystal clear, as to what torture is under the Geneva Convention. All you have to do is read it and “bam” war criminals abound. So silly.”
***********
Those who will not see are the most blind. Obscurantism will not save you when the actors themselves admit the deed but deny it meets the definition of torture. You will find no precedence in those memos that supports the methodology approved by the DOJ lawyers. This was lawyer shopping to find enough supplicant apparatchiks with a “JD” to sign off on the sadism that our redneck Administration deemed appropriate to deal with its “brown menace.”
What did I say about screwing with you Scott? Plain English not enough? I’ve won simply because you’ve been exposed as a flack. That was my one and only goal after watching you spew for a bit. Your arguments, as mespo points out, are flaccid and ignorant at best. Many of us are or have been actual lawyers. You know, the kind that go to court and talk to real judges for a living. We’re not some punk 1L wannabe playing one on a blog. Hell, our usual 1L and 2L contributors, and there are some, do a far superior job to your efforts. Do you honestly think we haven’t run through the arguments against Bush and Cheney already? You do know that to run an argument against it is only wise to look at the argument for if only to spot your own weakness, right? Or do they not teach that basic logic and case prep skill at Regent’s? As I initially said “you ring propagandistic and false”, but perhaps you are a fool too. The bell has only tolled louder and louder. I’m perfectly content to let my “minions” rip you to shreds and ridicule you. Why? Victory is mine as my goal is accomplished. My job done. It’s their turn to have fun at your expense. Again, why? Friends share. And guess what’s for dinner? Just wait until your ignorance stirs Bob’s ire into action. I anxiously await that bloodbath. He is a fearsome creature for such a funny man with a frog fixation. Don’t let the cute little penguin icon fool you. Then again, you don’t listen to warnings, do you?
I told you that you were in over your head in here. It’s only going to get worse for you. Conversely, it’s only going to get more entertaining for me. Ciao, skifu.
SCott:
Detainees on American soil enjoy Bill of Rights protections-period. The principle predates the latest case. We call that precedent. The case you are referring to, Boumediene et als v. Bush, held that habeas corpus rights extended to detainees NOT UNDER AMERICAN JURISDICTION (technically Guantanamo is under Cuban sovereignty). The government conceded that the Great Writ would apply to detainees on American soil.
“Fundamental questions regarding
the Constitution’s geographic scope first arose when the Nation
acquired Hawaii and the noncontiguous Territories ceded by
Spain after the Spanish-American War, and Congress discontinued
its prior practice of extending constitutional rights to territories by statute. In the so-called Insular Cases, the Court held that the Constitution had independent force in the territories that was not contingent upon acts of legislative grace. See, e.g., Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138.”
Talk less-listen more.
raffwl,
Again a cogent and well reasoned post. Without any personal invective. Thank you.
If only the lawyers at the top levels of government advising the president were as smart as you. I mean its such a black and white issue, so crystal clear, as to what torture is under the Geneva Convention. All you have to do is read it and “bam” war criminals abound. So silly.
Scott,
I also want to remind you that we prosecuted Japanese soldiers for their torture after WWII and we even prosecuted American soldiers for torture during Vietnam.
Also, your comment earlier(I apologize for being late to the party tonight) complaining that we are jumping to a conclusion calling Cheney a torturer, is off base because Cheney admitted to ordering and authorizing waterboarding as did George W. Waterboarding is torture(as Buddha mentioned earlier) under US law and international law, therefore I consider Bush’s admission and Cheney’s admission as all the evidence required to prove that they both tortured.
Bron98:
“And while not signatories shouldnt we as a civilized country respect the rules of war up and above the Geneva convention? I dont think we even tortured Japanese prisoners of war and they did far worse than al queada.”
***********
A few corrections:
1. We are signatories to the Geneva Conventions of 1949.
2. American soldiers did torture both German and Japanese prisoners and were punished for it. There are no instances of torture for information, but retribution was indeed a motivator on the battlefield. Unlike today, our commanders acted to stop it.
3. The Geneva Conventions apply to all armed conflicts whether the opponent is a signatory or not.
I can give you the cites and more info, but suffice to say, it’s all available to you on the UN website –International Criminal Court page.
Actually Mespo the Eighth Amendment point was raised by your buddy Buddah and was in response to him. Why don’t you message him privately. Given the points I was making why would you think I would unilaterally raise the Eight Amendment. Better yet, apologize to him for embarassing him in public.
Sorry buddy, but due process rights, which is part of this debate, again raised by others, do not apply in totality the same to U.S. citizens as to non enemy combatants. Your argument about the bill of rights is a non sequitor The Supreme Court only decided recently that detainees had ANY constitutional rights..you want me to give you the cite..?
Ah mespo:
Wishing I would have read your reply before posting!
Quoting the Bullfrog ESQ himself,
‘Uno absurdo dato, infinita sequuntur.’
One absurdity being allowed, an infinity follow.
CCD:
“Breaking the law keeps us safer?”
************
Interesting comment: breaking the law to preserve it. Reminds me of that logic from the Sixties: “destroying the village to save it from the Viet Cong.” I like Scott–he makes me laugh!
Bron!!!!!!!!!
That was the first rational, well written and well supported post, and polite at the same time, in response to my posts. Thank you. Actually, I am going to think about the points you made, honestly, and respond.
Initially, you raise some very good points about the Geneva Convention, etc, and also at least acknowledge that this issue, and treatment of these people, is not analagous to someone in TX and a how they are treated after a traffic stop. A point others have been unwilling or unable to see.
Thanks again.
Scott:
The FBI interrogates people, US citizens and non US citizens. They’re highly adept at it as well. In 2002 Bob Mueller declined administering enhanced interrogation practices. He ordered FBI personnel not to participate. He refused to break the law. CIA director George Tenet thought breaking the law would keep us safer. Would you agree? Breaking the law keeps us safer?
Scott’s ignorance is manifest. The Bill of Rights is not limited to “citizens.” It covers anyone within the borders or territories of the United States. In addition, the Eighth Amendment’s protection attaches post-conviction, and in no way applies to detainees. I like a spirited debate, but a battle with a twit should cause us all to withdraw in amusement.
Scott:
now you are getting into the swing. One thing though what does our acceptance of the Geneva Convention do to the way we treat battlefield prisnors? We certainly arent treating these guys the same way we treated German POW’s in WWII, my mother used to tell me stories of Germans from the local camps coming into town and of the local people making pies and cakes and taking them to the camps for the POW’s. What happened to necessitate having to hold POWs outside the US? I dont think these Germans were ever tortured (unless my mom made her “famous” peach cobler for them). Arent we governed by this treaty when we fight wars? I understand that taliban and al queda actors are not necessarily state actors, but the case can be made that they are. And while not signatories shouldnt we as a civilized country respect the rules of war up and above the Geneva convention? I dont think we even tortured Japanese prisoners of war and they did far worse than al queada.
Any way I am not sure this is grist for a “formal” debate, the wrong side can win in those you know, and the subjectivity of the judges is certainly a factor.
The Eight Amendment it forbids “cruel and unusual punishment.” Well here is where it gets a bit tricky. What is cruel and unusual? This is determined by case law interpreting this clause in the Constitution. One would think if torture were cruel and unusual, where someone lives and suffers no permanent injury, then certainly being put to death would be. But here is where the law, rather than ranting comes in, the Supreme Court has held that death penalty statutes doe not violate the cruel and unsual portion of the Eight Amendment. I know you like to say “Eight Amendment, Eight Amendment, Eighth Amendment” but as you can see, once again it is not as simple as your hatred rather than reason would like.
“I’ve already won.” What did I tell you about starting with an unsupportable conclusion? Its not effective. Oh and in response “My dad can beat up your dad.” See how ineffective it is?
A small, tiny point of law regarding the article you cite. The precedent it refers to is based on U.S. civilians in a U.S. jail. Now, this has to be explained, but I really do think you can get it. There are different rights afforded to U.S. citizens in a peace time jail than to someone held extra territorially as a result of, and during a war. Let me give you an illustration so you can better understand: When we capture someone exploding an IED and killing soldiers in Iraq, we don’t capture them and read them their Miranda rights. And to analogize an abusive sheriff trying to coerce a confession out of a citizen to a suspected terrorist who may have information about planning an attack on the U.S. and who is captured in a war zone is an “apples vs. oranges” argument, at least legally. For you to suggest, or the article to suggest, that these situations are on all fours with each other is legally and factually fallacious.
AY,
Here it is straight from the Library of Congress.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/bdsdcc:@field(DOCID+@lit(bdsdccc0801))
The “page image” link will take you to .jpg’s of the document itself.