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.
Last bit, do you think that they will play all of the Elvis songs. Are you Lonesome tonight, You ain’t nothing but a hound dog for Cheney, Love me Tender, Jail House Rock, It will be a Blew Blew Christmas without you?
Buddha,
Now you are baiting the females. Ummmmm, I’m telling the teacher. Maybe they will put her in the cell next to Geo. the II. or W or 43 or bitch, whatever they may call him.
Do you think that they might have a blanket party with the new Bitch on the block? Would that be torture? or would it be censored? I have an Enquiring mind and I want to know.
Looks like the prosecution will get a chance to swing at Condi too.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/condoleezza-rice-cheney-a_n_190340.html
Excellent.
Mike S, it’s ‘Obama Time”
As I’ve been saying:
Jill didn’t know what she’s talking about and doesn’t
– even still!
I said it before mespo and he said it before you and Rafflaw 😉
Buddha,
This computer stuff sure is hard on an old geezer.
Jill,
As I’ve been saying it’s gonna happen and it’s too early to give up on the Pres.
Mike A,
I really do think this is blowing open right now. I’m sure the machinations are coming thick and fast. I’m grateful that we still have people in our govt. who have a conscience and have courage. I’m glad we have citizens to back them up. Most of our population isn’t willing to “bury the past”. I think that’s great. I’m regaining my faith in our country.
Mike,
Here’s a good emoticon dictionary. I’m thinking not all will work in WordPress, but it’s worth a shot.
http://www.netlingo.com/smileys.php
I don’t know if the full compliment works. Let me try a few I never use here.
😀 >:) 😛
smile = colonD, devil = >colonD, Pfhht! = colonP
There may be more.
My bad. But seriously Buddha how do I get emoticons to work? I feel that I’m not conveying enough emotion in my comments.
Mike,
Shhhhh! You’ll ruin it for the trolls! I was trying to run reinforcement. 😀
Buddha,
The whole raison d’etre of these trolls is to make us angry. They care more for that then they do in scoring points for their side. If you think about it the more civil I am, the more sadistic I’m being, in denying them their fondest wish.
Jill, I agree. I have hopes that this may proceed the way Watergate did. A couple of courageous people come forward, providing courage to others, until the whole bloody mess explodes in a torrent of information. I think the Obama administration is wise enough to know that, regardless of what Congress or the White House are doing, there are many people furiously digging and the entire web of secrets and lies will be revealed in due course. Somewhere someone is working toward a Pulitzer even as we sit here trying to sort through the bits and pieces we’ve learned about.
Mike A.,
I think there is a real battle taking place in our govt. right now between people who wish to keep the lawless status quo and people who want to take back our rightful Constitutional govt. I believe this is why we are seeing so much information coming out at this time. If I’m correct in this, I appreciate the willingness of those who are risking a great deal to get the information out and who are taking a stand for the rule of law.
Mike S,
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. You continue to be the nicest guy on the Internet.
Scott,
It seems you read, perhaps appreciated its’ civility level, but didn’t get the meaning of my answer. My point was that your question in and of itself was not a valid one, but merely a meaningless rhetorical tactic. Perhaps though that is carrying civility a little too far, since you already know that. In truth your tactic was a dishonest one and as I pointed out totally hypothetical and unreal, but you conveniently ignored that part of what I stated because you know it was true. You admit to posing the question as a “trap,” but of course you are loath to admit that the question itself is pointless.
In your last paragraph you quote the first part of my statement but leave out my explanation for why I stated it. That js also fundamentally dishonest. This, however, is the problem you pose. While on a superficial level you write well, there is little depth or debate in your writing. You are in fact more interested in being a propagandist for your viewpoint, than having a substantive discussion. I’m of course assuming that you may know the difference, but admit that I might be giving you too much credit.
One of the sad offshoots of the “Crossfire” type of news show we’ve been exposed is that honest debate has been replaced by game like propaganda. Your comments thus far have typified that style. You are not interested in honestly defending your views, in fact you have taken pains to conceal most of them, you simply get a thrill from what you think of as “scoring points.” That’s too bad because you’ve obviously got the rudiments of intelligence, but seem to lack the intellectual honesty to go with it. Seeing your command of the language I approached you civilly to see if I could get a discussion started. From the form of your response I see that is not possible, so I’ll leave you to wend your merry way. It isn’t that I couldn’t beat you at your own game, but I found such exercises boring on the schoolyard arguing with Yankee fans when I was ten.
What I find deliciously ironic (I am looking for something delicious because the disgust I feel for what we have learned is almost mind-numbing) in all of this is that if prosecutions do ensue, conservatives will undoubtedly characterize the proceedings as show trials. Those convicted will be regarded by the right as political prisoners. Will Republicans be able to enlist their own William Kunstler? Will we see the trial of the Washington 7? Will we turn the decade of the sixties on its head? Stay tuned.
AY,
When I finally find a sarcasm font, I’ll be sure to get you the link. 😀
Scott R,
You are welcome. Most welcome.
mespo,
One lives to be of service.
Telling someone they can’t understand, in conclusory form, is a clear indication that they understand a bit better than you do. Adios.