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:
I shall take your plan to heart.
Scott R.,
After last night, you are indeed on your own. You cannot understand what you cannot understand. So no one can explain it to you in terms that you can understand so drop it.
It is kinda of like College Calculus or Linguistics. You can either understand it or you better drop it. So in you case, drop it.
Thanks for the polite response Mike. Actually my question about waterboarding wasn’t intended to be that deep or calculated, it was actually quite simple and intended to be so. And yes it does leave a person who answers “no” to the charge that they would rather 3,000 people die than have one suspect waterboarded. I respect those that say they would rather have 3,000 people die than waterboard one suspected terrorist, but I disagree with them. However, others on here have attempted to take some deep meaning to the question, parse it, etc., the intent of the question was clear, it posed a choice.
I can take the jabs at me just fine, yours was a good read. However, there was one statement that was very curious:
“As to whether this will poison the ability of Mr. Cheney to get a fair trial that is immaterial under our legal system” Really, it is immaterial that he gets a fair trial? Hmmmm let me think on that one from a group of people that are so concerned with due process and fair trials. I am kinda confused.????
Thanks for the polite response Mike. Actually my question about waterboarding wasn’t intended to be that deep or calculated, it was actually quite simple and intended to be so. And yes it does leave a person who answers “no” to the charge that they would rather 3,000 people die than have one suspect waterboarded. I respect those that say they would rather have 3,000 people die than waterboard one suspected terrorist, but I disagree with them. However, others on here have attempted to take some deep meaning to the question, parse it, etc., the intent of the question was clear, it posed a choice.
I can take the jabs at me just fine, yours was a good read. However, there was one statement that was very curious:
“As to whether this will poison the ability of Mr. Cheney to get a fair trial that is immaterial under our legal system” Really, it is immaterial that he gets a fair trial? Hmmmm let me think on that one from a group of people that are so concerned with due process and fair trials. I am kinda confused.????
“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?”
Scott,
Simple answer from me is: No! However, queries such as yours deserve more than simple answers. Your question in and of itself is spurious. Why? Because before performing the torture the potential torturers would have no idea of what they were preventing. It’s a straw man you set up, that seems to make a lot of sense to people who do not wish to think too much. It is rhetorical legerdemain and a version of “When did you stop beating your wife?” A “no” leaves one open to the charge that they would rather 3,000 people be killed, than one tortured. A “yes” exonerates torturers and murderers like Dick Cheney (I’ll get to your point on calling him that in a trice)and makes the impermissible, permissible.
There are two factors that also must be considered with this.
One is that “waterboarding” has been recognized as torture since the Inquisition, though probably the technique is thousands of years older. The purpose of torture in the Inquisition was to get people to admit to the charges against them. Torture would be continued until an admission was made, or the person died. Curiously, some inquisitors would think that the persons death due to failure to “break” was an exoneration and that person would get a holy burial.
The use of waterboarding has been proven via memos at this point so we know for a fact that torture took place.
The second factor that must be noted is that life is not like the TV show “24,” which sets up clear cut scenarios that
deal with torture. Also curiously, if you’re a fan of the show (and I am)you see that not every use of torture is valuable, or works, which shows that even Fox writers have doubts of its’ efficacy. However, although I think Kiefer Sutherland is an excellent actor and the show is about the tragedy of Jack Bauer’s life, it is not that well written and so shouldn’t be used by thinking people to set up scenarios that are fictional in nature, so that they can ask questions that are false on their face.
Speaking of questions one for you:
If Jesus is the Messiah and the Book of Revelations true, then would killing him upon his return, as well as the Anti-
Christ, prevent Armageddon and save the lives of most of humanity? Equally as fallacious a proposition as your original query.
Now as to the point of whether Mr. Turley has presumed Cheney’s guilt and thus is an unreliable commentator and somehow effects the validity of a potential trial, the answer is no and no. Mr. Turley will have no legal standing at Mr. Cheney’s coming trial and as a citizen is permitted to have opinions, which in this case are based solely on fact. Whether convicted, or not, the evidence shows that Mr. Cheney ordered and condoned torture. Whether this was unlawful is to be determined by a jury, though if I was a lawyer I would prefer a Judge to decide. As to whether this will poison the ability of Mr. Cheney to get a fair trial that is immaterial under our legal system, because unlike others, we generally do not bar statements from outside parties about innocence, or guilt.
Finally, my last point which is that you are obviously a skilled writer, but also too a dishonest man. I conclude this because anyone with your written skill is well aware of the fallacies of the straw men you set up and the inconstancy of the question you ask. This directs me to infer that you are presenting your case either because you are so completely partisan that you will defend your turf even at the price of disingenuous argument, or that you are a propagandist intent on sowing seeds of doubt through the use of straw men, possibly both. What leads me to lean towards the latter though, is your clever insertion of jabs at the “left” (which in your fantasies you think you are arguing with)throughout your comments in a manner that hides their nature, by the main point you are making. So you are intelligent I grant, but not nearly as smart as you think you are.
Bron,
It will be an effort, but the “left/right” format is pure propaganda and distraction for the real issue. This isn’t about political preference. It’s about crime. That’s how you present it to the citizen – apolitical analysis of criminal action. It’s not only possible, it’s done in court rooms every day. As far as W and Dick goes, well, I’ve said all along that no one expects W to go to prison for the simple reason he’s visibly too stupid to be an instigator. Cheney on the other hand has enough evidence compounding his guilt coming out every day, sometimes from his own mouth, that meeting the standard of judgment for treason and war crimes should be as possible as it is necessary to restore the integrity of the Constitution.
You might want to read this for a little perspective and a gleaning of how the argument should be presented in such a fashion that partisan hackery has nothing to do with it:
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/2970
Buddha, Mespo, Et. Al:
I have been reading the debate you are having with Mr. Rumpf. Because Chenney has basically admitted he waterboarded wouldnt a trial be about determining if waterboarding rises to the level of torture and if it does, then a prosecution for torture. I keep going back to my early days on this blog and keep thinking that it will be hard to convince an average person that something our own military officers undergo as part of their training is torture, albeit they “voluntarily” subject themselves to the procedure. I havent read the CIA memos but have heard some second hand chatter about bugs and other stuff that sounded kind of corny (although you do have to regard the source).
So I guess what I am asking what kind of bar would the justice department have to reach to prosecute W and DC? And because of Prof. Turley’s efforts this issue is going “mainstream”, once that happens how are you going to have a reliable jury pool and couldnt all of this be grounds for future appeals?
I think, in the end, it is going to be a monumental undertaking to prosecute. One other thing, with groups like MoveOn.org in the mix the right is going to view this as left wing payback, how do you address those types of issues?
The more I think about this the more I worry about long term consequences. The left and right are so polorized now I can see this leading to some really bad outcome.
anyway just some thoughts.
Mojo,
You exhibited remarkable restraint while administering a first class troll stomping. Good show.
mespo,
If the wisdom and cordiality is getting you down, might I suggest the Drastic Antisocial Method for Neocons Elucidating Despotism (D.A.M.N.E.D.).
1) Read Orwell’s “1984” as a game plan instead of cautionary tale. May substitute “Mein Kampf”, “Animal Farm” or the more difficult to obtain “The Fashion Sense of Hermann Göring or How to be a Nazi and Look FABULOUS!”
2) Sleep with the exhaust of a bus being pumped into the room at carefully timed intervals to avoid death, but not brain damage.
3) Destroy something valuable once a day without thought to consequence.
4) Hit yourself in the forehead with a hammer while listening to Toby Keith records for at least thirty minutes per day.
After doing this comprehensive program, you’ll not only be rid of any charm and wit, but you are automatically entitled to membership in PNAC.
Mojo:
“The mutual admiration society ia alive and well. “Oh good point my dear friend”..”and to you my fellow intellectual.”
**************
My god, Mojo, Scott Rumpf damns us as cordial and wise! Whatever shall we do?
Scott,
I guess we start out with the presumption of innocence. Well this is certainly more than Cheney afforded them. Ok, with that said. They are Cheney and company Innocent, even though they have publically admitted that they authorized the waterboarding. Have you ever heard of Respondent Superior. That means that the higher ups are guilty too.
But so far the only ones with Guilt associated with any of the alledged crimes that have been admitted to by Cheney under the direction of Bush have been E-5 or less. You tell me why were they guilty? Sir, they were just following Orders.
If they are in fact tried, for what he has admitted to in that a crime has been committed. They are entitled to the presumption of innocence even after they have admitted guilt.
If they take the stand in the USA then what they have stated is a declaration against interest and can be used as a party admission and even to impeach his testimony. He would have to have some pretty slick lawyers and a really dumb jury or a judge and jury that has been bought to get over that hurdle.
Repeat after me in order to over come the admitted crime: 1) Slick Lawyer; 2) really dumb jury or bought; and/or 3) really dumb judge that has been bought.
Its that simple. Now you are wasting time. Good Luck and do us all a favor and read a book about the Nuremberg Trials hey a good book is Leon Uris- QBVII go out and get it now.
Mojo,
In your zeal to be cute and respond you have lectured me on how the ends don’t justify the means. That is a much shorter and less verbose way to state the point I think you were trying to make. However, you have obviously been reading the liberal talking points too much, e.g. Cheney tries the fallacious argument that if we got good intel it justifies techniques used. If you read my posts I never made that point. If you are going to lecture me, or attempt to, at least make the topic a response to a point that I have actually made rather than repeating talking points from MSNBC that are non responsive to any point I have made. You spent too much time and effort writing something that I was saying “what???” I don’t now what he is talking about.
The mutual admiration society ia alive and well. “Oh good point my dear friend”..”and to you my fellow intellectual.”
Always a pleasure, and reading your posts are as well …
I had to hold my tongue for fear that I might point out that Scott Rumph was just one omitted consonant away from being a ‘perfect ass’.
Oops …
Mojo:
Thanks for having the patience to articulate the system to this hapless boob.
Scott –
You don’t seem to really have a firm grasp of how the law works. The entire point of an investigation and a trial is that there is a reasonable belief that a crime was committed. That is how trials begin.
The prosecution states that they believe this crime was committed, and this person was in some way involved, and through the course of the trial they will prove their case that said crime was committed by said defendant.
The defense is allowed to state the opposite, that is that the crime may have occurred, but the defendant was not the perpetrator, or that in fact no crime occurred, and etc.
When Professor Turley says that he strongly believes a crime has been committed, that is how investigations and trials usually begin. A belief, especially a strong one, that a crime has occurred is how these things begin.
Your argument, however, may as well be applied to the ‘Craiglist Killer’s’ attorney, who made statements today that his client is innocent. Well, let’s be frank here and point out that no trial has yet taken place, and so how dare the defense attorney make such a statement?
Well, Scott, it’s how these investigations and trials begin. One side says one thing, and the other side tries to knock it down. People have to make statements that lead to investigations and trials, because if nobody ever said anything then nothing would get done and people would walk free. Somebody has to make an accusation.
And so of course someone has to believe that a crime occurred. And the fact that the prior administration’s top people have defended their actions in using water-boarding to extract information means that they have already admitted to committing the crimes the professor is pointing toward.
For them to say that we may have engaged in actions which constitute torture (which is clearly defined as being illegal) but we got some info from them is equivalent to the accused ‘Craigslist Killer’s’ defense consisting of, “Well, I may have robbed and killed, but at least I got some money”.
It’s admitting to a crime but trying to justify it by the results (which, in the case of torture are also shown to be flawed as torture has proven to not provide any valuable information.)
Scott Rumph:
“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.”
************
Then armed with the obfuscations you so eloquently enumerate, the scoundrels should have no problem facing prosecutor, judge and jury, confident in their innocence, virtue and patriotism. If obscurantism is a defense, then they (and you) should have no problem at all. Let the dodge ball begin!
SR,
It is time to say good night and good luck to you and the rest of your torture loving trolls.
Have a good night, hitting the sack.
Well if you like W you should like dick. Thats all. No one has a problem with intelligent statement. Please see one of my earlier posts regarding a troll.
It is kind of like arguing with a 2 year old or mentally challenged person. Regardless of the logic they still want what they want when they want what they want.
You are free to post anywhere you want. Even if you are disagreed with. Just have respect for peoples opinion. That is all. Nothing more. No one is being graded and we only have one test and it is at the end. When asked, what did we do that made a difference in someones life. Did we make it better and di we stand by our convictions and were we capable of changing them when we were wrong? Not much more simpler than that.
A troll is apparently anyone that doesn’t agree with the same three people talking here. And I never said anything about licking or liking Dick. Boy you guys are so threatened by anyone that offers a differing opinion. Would rather just type to each other I guess in complete glazed eye agreement. I would think that would get rather dull.