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.
Once again, waterboarding is torture.
That’s a legal fact. http://truthalliance.net/Archive/tabid/67/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/2594/DOJ-Prosecuted-Texas-Sheriff-in-1983-For-Waterboarding-Prisoners.aspx
Cheney ordered waterboarding, ergo he’s a prima facie torturer based upon case law alone. I’ll let you do your own leg work on the various statutes and treaties he’s violated in addition to the 8th Amendment.
I can embarrass you as well as any of “my minions”. You do them a great disservice to call them that as they are a varied and intelligent group well capable of coming to their own conclusions. You should learn the difference between minion and friend, but I suspect you have no baseline to define a friend. And this isn’t my blog, so technically we are all JT’s minions and since he serves the Constitution, it all flows to the source.
I feel no need to prove my skills to you. I’ve done that here many times to and with people who demonstrated the character and skills to earn my respect. All you’ve earned is ridicule.
I’d rather screw with you because you are such a propaganda troll. To me that’s just pure fun. I loathe propagandists, apologists and distortionists who try to provide cover for Bush Co. like Junior Bybee’s.
Win? I’ve already won. You mistake the shape of my victory. One cannot win a battle in the field until one knows the shape of victory.
But feel free to argue your semantic bullshit with Bob.
He likes gnawing on gristle.
One does not see definitions in the constitution. At least the copies that I have all unabridged. If someone has an extra one will they please share?
I am pleased that the troll is feeding elsewhere. Maybe a Teas Party is in gear.
Guys I am out, gotta get something to eat.
Once again “torture”, is a legal conclusion without fact. Don’t you realize when you are talking of a prosecution and using that word, you have to have a legal definition of what that means? Cheney was guilty of torture, Cheney was guilty of torture, Cheney is a traitor, Cheney is a traitor; I said it, therefore it is fact. Unfortunately for you, and again thanks to laws and the Consitution, if you say many times it doesn’t become legal fact.
Yes Mike, William F. Buckley was such a failure and an intellectual neophyte compared to you. Thank God you have the internet as a platform, I haven’t seen one of your books lately. You gentleman are so sanctimonious, and again, it is good you have this platform
You again mistake me for someone who’s going to do anything other than screw with you, troll. It’s what I do.
Bob will be your huckleberry though. Please regale him with your irrefutable arguments that Cheney should be allowed to torture with impunity.
That you could call some a racist based upon a few words of attempted baby talk, albeit probably not the best attempt, is really twisted.
As far as your comment about me using the word “interpretation” as defense to “torture” is puzzling. Whether someone is criminally responsible for something requires that they violate the law, it also requires that they commit the crime as defined by the law, whether it be by statute or case law. We will just convict people based upon what “Buddha” thinks is a crime, forget about fitting all the elements of a prma facie case as expressed in case law, statute etc?, We will just say torture is “what Buddha thinks”..forget about interpreting the law, or seeing a legal definition of it. This isn’t me parsing words or being cute, this is actually how our system works under the Constitution. Whether someone is guilty of murder is defined in statute; simply because you kill someone does not mean you are guilty of murder. The law requires interpretation, and your suggestion that we should dispense with it because you hate Dick Cheney and doggone it “I just know he is a fsscist torturer”, or it is ridiculous to look at what the law says because “Buddha knows torture when he sees it” is itself ridiculous and contrary to our system and the Constitution you so deeply care about.
“I’m not objective when it comes to ….fascist traitors”= Conclusion: that certain people are guilty of treason, then you will tallk about it after you make the conclusion.
“prima facie violator of the Constitution, various Federal laws and international”=Conclusion, devoid of facts or any verdict holding or pointing to such a conclusion. Perhaps if you keep writing it over and over again it becomes true because you “believe” in it.
However, I would rather deal with facts rather than ranting conclusions then inviting my minions to agree with me.
snicker
Scott Rumph,
I do adore argumentation.
Please set forth your case that you deem demands assent.
And what you think passes for reasoning? Well you’d have never used the word “interpretation” as a defense to torture if you had any critical skills. Some things are just by definition evil. Torture is one of them.
“may lead to actual legal reasoning rather than duh um dis is tawture, prima facie, case closed..duh….its all clear to me now.”
There you go, jackboot. That’s the verbal equivalent of black face.
And once again, for your criticism to be effective, the object of said criticism must care what you think. However, for the record, I’m not objective when it comes to the Constitution and violations thereof by fascist traitors. I think they should be subject to all kinds of ridicule and as much pain as fate and the legal system can fling their way. And then some.
Scott,
Your style is reminiscent of the late William F. Buckley, which you would no doubt take as a compliment. but I don’t mean it that way. Buckley, with his large vocabulary and patrician visage was seen as an intellectual, when at base his musings lacked the intellectual underpinnings one would expect of a Yale man. but then he was also a legacy like Bush Pere et Frere. You try to score with a persiflage of seeming high minded statements, but lack any content to back them up. Indeed, as I stated in my previous comment, which you were unable to address due to its’ valid content, you try to hide your beliefs and like a sniper from afar minimize your profile. To accuse buddha of lacking “intellectual objectivity” is indeed the pot calling the kettle black, since judging solely from your written content you lack any intellectual honesty.
Oh and lastly, the racist point, is a bit out of left field. Enlighten me on what I said that was racist?
Your ability to argue starting with the conclusion that you would like and then talking about the conclusion already arrived at is simply not an intellectual way of making an argument. You apparently don’t know what a prima facie case is; you may hope there is a prima facie case against people you hate but why don’t you wait until some actual facts come out before you make the conclusion and then argue from the conclusion. You would be scored very low using this tactic in a debate.
You and others have continually stated that I argued that the ends justify the means in regard to enhanced interrogation. I have never made that argument in these posts, but again, I won’t confuse you with facts as you dont’ seem to like that. I understand why you say that because that is the liberal retort to something Cheney said in an interview about the interrogations working to gain valuable information. The talking points are out, and you regurgitate them, even though I didn’t make that point..lol.
Just copy and save that portion of your post for when someone does make that point it will save the strain on your brain from copying the points from whatever document or transcript you have them from.
Lastly, the personal invective in youe poata ia the true sign of a real deep thinking “intellectual.” The definition of troll is apparently anyone that comes on “your” site and disagrees with you. Unfortunate.
Also, you don’t have to be so verbose in your responses; pare them down a bit, only recite the salient facts (if you have any in your posts) and people are more likely to read the entire post. Just a friendly suggestion.
Well gee, Cheney Apologist Scott, you’re assuming a lot.
1) That I care what you think after your previous displays of propagandistic ill- and false logics. You’re protecting a prima facie violator of the Constitution, various Federal laws and international law and you’re being a whiner about it. A racist whiner based on your little Amos & Andy tirade the other day. That’ll endear you to people and win them over to your side . . . if they are as humorless and stupid as you are. And don’t blather anymore about “interpretation” or “relativism” or “well it worked” arguments in support of torture. If you keep that up, you need to take Bob’s advice and go buy Lisa Simpson’s Anti-Tiger Rock, because you aren’t getting any play on that here. Wishful thinking and making the mistake that correlation is causation are amateur night.
2) That I’m the one coming unhinged like a hateful madman here when all evidence points you just being a humorless small minded snot who rages at those he cannot best. I’ve been bashing trolls here a long time and the grand total of times I’ve gotten pissed off is once and it WAS personal. You? Eh, your not really coming close to that kind of record so far. You talk real pretty, but you don’t have any chops in the logic/fact department. And even if I do hate Cheney, and I do most certainly do, what do you think is the appropriate feeling toward a treasonous torturer? A warm fuzzy? Obviously so, which leads to the conclusion that you are also emotionally stunted as well as intellectually sub-par.
3) That Cheney doesn’t deserve to get his ass beat as a matter of pure karma. For violating the Constitution and committing treason in the name of profit? I think it’s the least he deserves on top of a nice long prison term and having his assets seized and possibly a plethora of venereal disease which I am sure someone like yourself would be glad to provide. He should die discredited, beaten and penniless for what he’s done to this country. You don’t like that? Tough. Some people like Coke, some people like Pepsi. This in no way obviates that Saddam was a bad guy WHO DIDN’T ATTACK US ON 9/11 (I’m betting you are one of those who still thinks he did) or that Iran’s “I’mADinnerJacket” isn’t a hateful sadistic freak who’s going to get his country nuked if he doesn’t get his act together and quit threatening the equally psychotic warpigs running Israel at the moment. You and your straw men and false equivalences!
4) Unlike what you seem to think, the law applies to everyone (including your Unca Dick) or it applies to no one. President and VP are not the equivalent of absolute monarchs and you’d understand that if you’d passed high school civics.
If I’m hurting at all from your little tirade, it’s because I’m about to burst a kidney laughing at how personalized you think this is to YOU. Awwww. You Cheney’s illegitimate child or secret lover? Sure seems like you have a vested interest in protecting torturers. Got to be a reason.
Thanks once again for showing how completely out of your league you are, although I’ll stipulate you’re a better sophist than most trolls. However, your repeated poor performance causes me to downgrade your rating from “A” to “B”. Whatever Dick is paying you in, cash or Dick, he’s not getting his monies worth.
Enjoy that G&T, you elitist torture excusing hack. I’m going to sit back and laugh and laugh . . . directly at you.
Scott Rumph:
And what fuels this hatred? I would be interested to hear your opinion. Some on this site definitely do hate W and DC for whatever reason, but a good number think that W and DC played fast and loose with the constitution and so should be held accountable.
We on the right are certainly not above making jokes or engaging in political satire. I hope you remember the Clinton years and poor Jimmy the C is still the butt of right wing political jokes and derisive commentary. I can remember right wing buddies of mine spewing as much vile invective at Clinton as anyone on this site has projected at Bush and Chenny. And Henry Waxman, I have heard some pretty bad things about his physical appearence, not too intellectual I might add.
State your piece, what are you a candy ass that cant take a little derision? Give it back to them. Your just like all the other republicans, Marcus of Queensbury rules or you wont fight, that is one of the reasons I am not a rebumpkinlin anymore, its the party of pussies and that starts with P and that ryhmes with Panzy.
We could take some lessons from the people on this site about advocating for your beliefs and seeing them through to completion.
Go back to the country club Lord Fauntleroy and sip a G&T.
Don’t you realize that your pathetic attempts at humor just demonstrate your unmitigated hate. Therefore, if you just read your posts they demonstrate you can have no intellectual objectivity or be capable of an informed discussion. Men are often ruled by their passion rather than by reason, and this seems to apply to you. Again, this is assuming you could have a rational intellectual conversation over a topic you were not so filled with hatred for a particular individual…why don’t we talk about Saddam Hussein or the crazy Iranian leader, people you might not hate as much, then we can see if you can say something that is guided by actual logic and not by hate.
AY,
If Dick were to run into a sock full of soap or oranges in the showers late one night, I wouldn’t call it torture proper. More like a cross between karmic justice and natural selection.
I see Dick Cheney cuddled up in one of his “secure locations”, clinging to files containing his “secrets” just as a drooling infant grips his “blankie” for dear life. But now,out of office, in the light of day,his reputation threatened, he is demanding transparancy. Good. Let the sun shine in – everywhere. On all his secrets. Who was behind the torture? Whose idea was it? Who developed it? Who signed our on it? Who implemented it? It will be interesting to see just what he means by “transparant.”
I see Dick Cheney cuddled up in one of his “secure locations”, clinging to files containing his “secrets” just as a drooling infant grips his “blankie” for dear life. But now,out of office, in the light of day,his reputation threatened, he is demanding transparancy. Good. Let the sun shine in – everywhere. On all his secrets. Who was behind the torture? Whose idea was it? Who developed it? Who signed our on it? Who implemented it? It will be interestin to see just what he means by “transparent.”