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.
Correction Correction
Scott the last line should read
LIKED DICK Correct it on your Copy. NOT LICKED DICK BUT LIKED DICK.
Hey, Scott:
Is a troll short for a trolley? Where everyone can take a ride. If so, you are on the wrong site. You might want to try, the alternative pages. That should get you going in the right direction.
You have already stood up and said you licked Dick.
Well let them have the trial in the Military Court of Justice. Oh yes, that would be fair. It would not be as bad as in federal court where they drop the the other 95% of the file on your desk the day trial starts and ask if you are ready to proceed.
What ya gonna do bad boys bad boys when they come for you bad boys bad boys.
I am amusing.
Pedantic, myopic…geez willikers I better get my Webster’s out..damn you are impressive. Give yourself a pat on the back and put your SAT study book down.
Wow such big words…yeah forget about things such as interpretation, due process…lets just cut to the chase…anyone we hate is guilty, suspected terrorists are the aggrieved…give me a break…its called law and the rule of law and does not lend itself to simplistic politically based verdicts.
There has been no proven violation of law…its just not as simple as you would hope..again you wish it was that simple. Definitions of torture, enemy combatants, due process (I hope they print those Miranda cards in Farsi, Urdu, and various other languages for fairness) and other matters are not..they broke the law its clear yada yada yada, that is your wish. Its more complicated, and should be more complicated than that.
Buddha:
Scott Rumph is the kind of advocate who masks stupidity with flowery polysyllabic words to create the guise of intelligence. He knows full well that civilized persons (an even some honest uncivilized sorts)since the time of the Inquisition have found waterboarding to be torture, but he is determined to torture us with some pedantic law school babble about the law being full of interpretation. It’s full of interpretation when the issue is undecided. That is not the case under his scenario. I suggest to my sagacious friends here that they avoid casting more pearls before this swine in the hopes he might eat one. Better to concentrate on those who are not blinded by their own self-inflicted myopia.
CCD,
Yeah, I’m out too. I’ll let this asshat bury himself and get a good laugh in the AM.
Scott,
awwww, now who’s name calling, troll bait? That’s just so cute.
I have not done anything to endorse a terrorist. Those would be your words so keep them out of my mouth. You, on the other hand, have expressed that violating the law is justified if it brings victory. Well that’s just nonsense because you lose when you violate your principles in the name of expedience. You become what you fight.
It is my learned opinion that they are criminals based on evidence presented to date. Nothing more, nothing less. Since it is not my trial to run, what does my bias impact the proceedings? NOT ONE WHIT. There is no twist in my logic, although plenty in yours. They committed a crime by definition. If they have exculpatory evidence, let them show the judge and the rest of the world.
Good night BIL, the manure just keeps getting deeper here.
The conclusion that a certain interrogation technique can lead to disclosure of secrets? Are you serious? That conclusion is fallacious? You mean in the history of interrogation by waterboarding no valuable intelligence was ever obtained? Hmmm let me think about this….intuitively, um..your wrong.
So since due process applies, and assuming you all understand what the minimal standards of due process in the U.S. are, we are going to give Miranda warning cards to our soldiers to read to combatants they capture on the battlefield?
Scott
The conclusion is fallacious. What does that make the question?
Why have a trial? You already have concluded the Constitution was violated, the verdict is in. People so bending over backwards, twisted logic, in support of suspected terrorists, yet they convict anyone else and have the trial afterwards…this is starting to be either comical or sad. But the intellectual contradiction and hypocracy is transparent.
AY,
That’s another topic altogether and you know it.
Or evade.
Either way, your game is up and what you are is revealed to the readers.
Say good night, troll. I look forward to laughing in my coffee tomorrow at how you try to worm out of it.
Buddha,
Innocent people go to Prison everyday. (The man is missing something after that Morp-drip.)
Just ask Craig Watkins do DNAs on Convicted people I guess whom were Criminals are being freed. Well, these folks are getting released because of corrupt evidence or suppressed evidence or coached witnesses. The DNA just did not match up. Just bad juju.
Well in a similar light, Due Process was not in the last administrations vocabulary. DP (and it does not stand for the Larry Flint meaning) had nothing to do with Bush or Cheney and for that they shall be asked to answer to. Unless they are needing to get greased up for the real DP.
Come on, tell me why there should be no trial? Tell me why violating the Constitution is how you protect it? Let’s hear it in detail.
CCD,
You didn’t answer the question because you didn’t read it. There was a conclusion in the question, the conclusion was the technique DID lead to disclosure of evidence that would prevent a terrorist act…etc.. It wasn’t a discussion of whether certain interrogation techniques are better than others.
No. I answered your question and then gave you another, which you didn’t answer. That’s not the same as answering with a question, which implies I didn’t answer when I did.
You’re A-List Troll, you know your basics in tactics, but you will fail.