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.
I’m not the one trying to paste due process as violated before it starts.
And if you act like a dick, I’ll treat you like a dick. You got a problem with that, you shouldn’t have answered like a smartass punk with your Kingfisher Amos & Andy language.
Answering a question with a question, another transparent tactic when you can’t or won’t answer the question.
A. No, enhanced tactics are ineffective. Your question is spurious.
Buddah,
Seems when backed into a corner you lash out with name calling and anger, the real Buddah wouldn’t like that. And the curse words…take deep breaths, in and out, read some law and some facts, and try and put them together in a cogent, sensible response. Just pointing out that someone who is so concerned with the rights of the “accused”, like terror “suspects” ought to be concerned with respecting all “accused” rights; you wouldn’t want to poison a potential jury pool by calling the accused a criminal before he has had his day in court. Again, being so concerned about rights and liberties, and due process, I thought you might want to apply it to all, being concerned about the integrity of the U.S. and all that.
You are in way over your head.
Disallow.
It’s torture by law and treaty.
Does acting like your enemy in the name of “victory” justify violating the Constitution?
Waiting for an answer.
Q. If waterboarding a single terror suspect would prevent another 9/11, and cause the detainee no physical injury, would you do it or allow it?
Waiting for an answer
Sport, you can use the term accused all you want. Accused becomes criminal after the evidence is heard. You, on the other hand, don’t want the evidence heard.
I, personally, have heard enough evidence to determine guilt so I’ll use whatever goddamn term I want.
But I am not a judge so what I call them shouldn’t matter to you should it? Unless you’re a propagandist trying to control the language.
I have to no rules here other than I behave when JT asks me to so if you just want to act like a smartass after I’ve afforded you way more civility than I usually do trolls, you go right ahead and see how well that works out for you.
And thanks for confirming your trollish nature.
Scott Rumph
BushCo is going to need attorneys to defend their actions, will you be available?
Scott,
I can answer that Question by taking it apart as it is extremely compound.
If waterboarding a single terror suspect would prevent another 9/11. I do not believe that it would cause a national or international uproar. A single act to preserve National and International Security.
Did you hear about the Attorney in Washington State that was arrested for being part of the Spain Train bombing. It was proved that the man was in court on the very day. Apparently they had lifted off his finger prints from a brief case that was used to make the bomb. It was eventually resolved but it was concluded that 1 in 10,000,000 share the same finger print structure. Get this An attorney in Washington. The killer info the Govt had was he converted to Muslim and he was white on top of it. Can you imagine the hardship that this mans family had to endure and the social embarrassment that they suffered as well. Go figure.
The second part “and cause the detainee no physical injury” hmmm, let me shoot at you and miss you 6 times a day or have you watch while I shoot your family or tell you that you family is next door and they stated that you were a terrorist. I guess that ok for you. It does appear on first blush CRUEL and UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT. But if you want it go for it. How you reconcile the psychological abuse.
For the reasons stated above. NO
Chicken Boy,
My reference to Nancy Pelosi was about her being prosecuted, not her conducting the prosection. You mean the justice department would do the investigation and prosecution, and the judiciary would hear the case? And I thought a congresswomen would conduct it…NOT. Members of Congress of both parties, including Pelosi, were advised and briefed that these tactics were being used.
First, you don’t put “criminals” on trial, you put the “accused” on trial. Perhaps a slip by you, again illustrating my point of guilty until proven innocent. Additionally, what is torture, or was torture at the time these techniques were applied is not a black and white issue, although your simplistic view satiates your need for a quick verdict of your liking. See my son, the law is full of interpretation, even differing interpretations at different times of the same statute. Although, I don’t suppose we want to get into those grey areas, too complicated and may lead to actual legal reasoning rather than duh um dis is tawture, prima facie, case closed..duh….its all clear to me now.
Scott,
Learn the meaning of the words “prima facie” and read USC sec. 2441.
Torture is a war crime. They’ve admitted they tortured. Waterboarding, by definition, treaty and expert testimony is torture. The rest is sorting out who gets to wear prison orange for ordering it in contravention of the Constitution, Federal law and international treaty.
So exactly what is it about putting criminals on trial that offends you? Other than you seen really anxious to protect them by attacking due process as somehow corrupted before it starts?
One can defend against a charge when there is insurmountable evidence. One just cannot do so successfully without malfeasance. Defense is not equivalent to guaranteed victory. Some people are just evil criminals. Guilty people go to prison every day and sometimes they have trials where they faced insurmountable evidence. Jeffery Dahmer comes to mind. “Insurmountable” is not the same as “falsified”. If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime. If you don’t want to go to prison for being a cannibalistic killer, don’t get caught with body parts in your fridge. If you don’t want to get caught for ordering torture, don’t order torture.
If you’re so worried about due process, you certainly don’t seem to trust it to work. Nancy Pelosi prosecution? I’m afraid you’ve got your basic structure wrong. She’s a member of Congress. They can use an investigation to say whether they think a crime was committed, but it is the DOJ that prosecutes and the judiciary that hears said evidence. Obama even said himself today it’s up to the AG to file charges. Afraid for in camera review of evidence that members of the Bush administration acted in a criminal fashion? If they didn’t, which is not really possible if you’ve looked up “prima facie” (some crimes as illustrated above are blatant), then you should trust due process to free them. Otherwise?
Your objections ring propagandistic and false.
You’re an A List troll. Not the first I’ve ever seen, but the first we’ve had here. Either that or you’re not very bright and don’t trust the judiciary to do their job. If you are a troll (my bet), this makes me smile. Because they’d only send a sophist like you if they were really afraid.
Q. If waterboarding a single terror suspect would prevent another 9/11, and cause the detainee no physical injury, would you do it or allow it?
Still no answers?
Chicken Boy,
No actually, under law, Dick Cheney as a U.S. citizen is entitled to more Due Process rights than non enemy combatants captured on the battlefield. Its a matter of the U.S Constitution and the case law thereunder. In other words its a matter of law, and not my opinion. But I don’t want to interject any actual facts here, where opinion IS fact. Here is the way you can think of it so you can understand..When our soldiers in Iraq capture an insurgent they don’t give them a Miranda Warning card to read, you know the one that says “you have the right to remain silent…etc..” Get it?
While you would like Mr. Cheney to have the same or less due process rights than insurgents, um, its simply not the way the law works. And after all, you are all about following the law aren’t you?
May I say lastly, Scott. Political Affiliation has nothing to do with my position.
You know what I think was the single issue that caused Geo the 1st his bid for reelection. When he stated that he did not know what the cost of a gallon of milk was. That said that he was out of touch with main street America.
You have to have compassion for the people you represent. Ask Marie, oh you can’t. She became head above the rest.
Are your ready for a Nancy Pelosi prosecution?
YES
I’m ready for an investigation of the actions of the previous administration and congress.
Scott Rumph,
Well I tried to read any substance to your reply, . . . Apparently, you missed the subtle point. . . .Whether something is . . . a War Crime, is a determination of law. My point was that Mr. Turley has already concluded in the title of his article that war crimes were committed
*************************************************************
You have made my point. But apparently sir, you have missed the point. If you make the state that we have authorized waterboarding then you have made an admission of fact and the law is what it is. No need to guess. Some people troll on here and try and be much more inflammatory and it gets pretty fun or not as the case may be.
I do not dislike Cheney, I dislike what he has done and authorized to be done and then allowed others to take the fall. Like the Ambassadors wife, Valarie Plaime. Sir, you tell me if Scooter Libby enjoys his convictions for Just following Orders. You probably were not aware that Bush would not return Cheneys call to give Libby a full pardon on the 11th hour. I guess it was his last shot at a Dick.
You bring up Due Process, Is not Dick Cheney entitled to the same that he authorized for others? If he were found outside the US if he is dumb enough to travel outside and is caught. Would we expect our system of fairness to trump? Of Course.
The Nazi’s and the way the American handled the POWs was greatly different. Please check your history. The Chicken suit is the references to a person going to the others political rally and just heckling the others divergent views.
Keep up the good work and I am sure you too will earn your feathers too.
CCD
I have no fear of investigation, but it seems to me the investigation, the prosecution, and the verdict has already be reached on here. The investigation I fear not, the predetermined outcome I do. Its laughable to hear people talk about Due Process for suspected terrorists which they don’t want to give to American Civil Servants because they are of a different political opinion of theirs. That is what is scary.
Q. If waterboarding a single terror suspect would prevent another 9/11, and cause the detainee no physical injury, would you do it or allow it?