Dick Cheney and torture

Here is the key paragraph from today’s speech by former Vice President Dick Cheney:

“I was and remain a strong proponent of our enhanced interrogation program. The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed. They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do. The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.”

Let’s count the lies here, shall we?

“The interrogations were used on hardened terrorists after other efforts failed.” By the sworn testimony of Ali Soufan, an FBI agent who conducted initial interrogations under normal interrogation techniques, that is wrong. Soufan told Congress that standard techniques were working very well until he was ordered by superiors to step aside to allow abusive techniques, which then failed.

“They were legal, essential, justified, successful, and the right thing to do.” Based on the public record, they were none of those things. The legal opinions used in the early days by the Bush administration to justify its behavior were so embarrasingly illogical and contorted that the administration itself eventually repudiated them.

“The intelligence officers who questioned the terrorists can be proud of their work and proud of the results, because they prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.” There is no evidence that intelligence gathered through torture saved lives, and according to military and counter-insurgency experts, a lot of reason to believe that abuse of inmates at Guantanamo and Abu Graib inspired attacks that cost American lives. A 2004 report by the CIA inspector general, still top secret but supposedly due to be released soon, reportedly reaches that same conclusion.

However, the American people should at least be grateful to Cheney for helping to keep this issue on the front pages. The assertions he made in his speech — including charges of “feigned outrage” and “phony moralizing” from those in Congress who had been briefed on such matters but stayed silent — add force to the argument that a nonpartisan commission outside the control of Congress is needed to produce the truth for the American people.

84 comments Add your comment

Kamchak

May 21st, 2009
2:42 pm

Jay

I have many “feelings” about Dick Cheney–gratitiude, however, is not among them.

Doggone/GA

May 21st, 2009
2:42 pm

Cue mention of Pelosi here. But I prefer this take on it: “we didn’t do anything wrong, but she should have stopped us anyway.” OF COURSE Cheney thinks all those things. When you are convinced you are in the right (get it?) you can’t do anything wrong. Uh huh.

Hillbilly Deluxe

May 21st, 2009
2:42 pm

We’ve about talked this subject to death. How about a column on what happened at Dunaire school?

DB, Gwinnettian

May 21st, 2009
2:44 pm

Well, if we’re picking it apart, might as well mention that by “intelligence officers” he really means hired-goon contractors, not CIA.

Redneck Convert

May 21st, 2009
2:46 pm

Well, who cares if they were legal? They kept us safe. That’s what the former VP hisself says so it must be the truth. Besides, it wasn’t torture. A little water never hurt no one. I myself take a bath in it once a month without fail. I expect alot of people on this blog do the same.

Anyhow, we got people running around talking about rights. Well, rights don’t do you no good if you’re dead. We need to allow for taking away a few every once in a while just to keep alot of people alive. Besides, the only right you got if you’re dead is to get planted someplace or maybe burnt up. Unless you’re that Peterson guy and you just stuff your wife in a barrel and haul it off.

That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good p.m. everybody.

pat

May 21st, 2009
2:46 pm

Everybody knows the CIA and FBI tell lies to congress, so how could we trust thier testimony. Just ask pelosi. They lie about everything.

ty webb

May 21st, 2009
2:46 pm

Cue the faux outrage.

Scooter

May 21st, 2009
2:49 pm

I agree with Hillbilly.

Bosch

May 21st, 2009
2:49 pm

Hillbilly Deluxe,

What happened at Dunaire school?

~~~~~~~~~~

Dick Cheney’s recent “Torture Good Media Tour 2009″ is proof positive that he was the Evil Genius behind Bush all along.

RealityKing

May 21st, 2009
2:56 pm

“There is no evidence that intelligence gathered through torture saved lives” -said the biased journalist

Of course, Obama would have no problem releasing the interigation documents if that were really the case. And he’s already shown his fondness for leaking classified info…, proofs in the pudding.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 21st, 2009
2:56 pm

Copyleft

May 21st, 2009
2:57 pm

Pat: Although I suspect Pelosi’s exaggerating to cover her own complicity in the Republicans’ war crimes, the fact that the CIA has lied to Congress–repeatedly–on MANY occasions–is well established.

Brian

May 21st, 2009
2:58 pm

Now wonder they call it the Urinal and Constipation. You’re right about one thing, the only way to settle it is to have an independent non-partisan commission outside the control of congress, but like that’s ever gonna happen.

pat

May 21st, 2009
3:00 pm

Agreed, done to death. Move on.
Still don’t care that some mass murdering terrorists got waterboarded. If they still got waterboarded I wouldn’t care. I don’t care what happens to them so long as they ain’t free to do terror again. Don’t condone torture, don’t care that it happened to them. You don’t want those files open, you will find that the Bush Administration did not invent torture for the purpose of extracting info. Keep the books closed. We’ve done it before, we may do it again.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 21st, 2009
3:01 pm

the fact that the CIA has lied to Congress–repeatedly–on MANY occasions–is well established.

Furthermore, here was a Republican happy to assert as much when it served his purposes to do so.

But when it’s Pelosi doing it, cue the poutrage.

jt

May 21st, 2009
3:02 pm

The previous topic.
I answered this question. ““Atlanta would secede from GA and either bcome it’s own state or re-join the union.”

As per Governor Sonny Perdue and Tommy Irvin, Atlanta can’t do this legally.
Tommy Irvin called to clarify. Atlanta COULD seceede from the state, if and only if, their termite papers were in order.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Bosch

May 21st, 2009
3:03 pm

DB,

Oh, I read about that – so tragic.

oldmac

May 21st, 2009
3:03 pm

Face it Jay, Cheney was like the real word grown-up dad schooling the sniveling little kid who didn’t get his way.

retiredds

May 21st, 2009
3:04 pm

Either Ali Soufan is lying or Dick Cheney is lying. I think it is DC. His speech was nothing more than an apology (a defense or justification) their position.

Bosch

May 21st, 2009
3:07 pm

George American,

Are you Mr. Dusty? Is she sleeping off her morning binge of mint juleps?

Mrs. Godzilla

May 21st, 2009
3:07 pm

cue the sadists as well.

Bosch

May 21st, 2009
3:08 pm

oldmac,

Cheney knew that he could never be elected President, so he did the next best thing – mentored and groomed Dubya to win and picked himself as VP so that he could activate his plot to rule/ruin the world.

DB, Gwinnettian

May 21st, 2009
3:08 pm

Speaking of Republicans who were happy to trash federal law enforcement, let’s not forget the Newt.

Newt Gingrich thinks that if Nancy Pelosi says the CIA misleads Congress, it doesn’t mean that there should be hearings into the substance of what she’s alleging. It means she should resign as Speaker of the House. But when he was Speaker of the House and saying to the media that the FBI was incompetent and a threat to Americans, it didn’t mean he was undermining the FBI agents’ morale and he should resign. No, then it meant that Congress ought to investigate.

Could someone, somewhere tell this tubby, hypocritical —-er to go the —- away? Wait, no. Instead, please let him run for president in 2012.

George American

May 21st, 2009
3:09 pm

Who is Mr. Dusty?

George American

May 21st, 2009
3:10 pm

Who are the sadist? The polar opposites of the happiest?

N.J,

May 21st, 2009
3:12 pm

To think, just a few decades ago, the United States main claim which differentiated itself from the Soviet regime, the “Evil Empire” and Warsaw Pact nations was that they would torture their citizens, as well as the citizens of other nations who fell into their hands, into confessing things they had never done, and in America, such actions were impossibilities. Only police states invocated “national security” to indulge in such barbarous and unthinkable treatment of others.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 21st, 2009
3:13 pm

Yes, thanks Dick, after you let the first 3500 die, you seem to have gottewn the hang of it.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 21st, 2009
3:14 pm

don’t forget the complaints about the last couple of NIE’s on Iran….
that made some GOP heads melt.

George meet dictionary….

ty webb

May 21st, 2009
3:17 pm

cue the idiotic moral equivalency. Doh, too late.

jewcowboy

May 21st, 2009
3:17 pm

Hillbilly Deluxe,

“We’ve about talked this subject to death. How about a column on what happened at Dunaire school?”

I would posit that torture and what happened at Dunaire would be on the same footing, regardless of the non-biased report that was put out by a school under investigation.

George American

May 21st, 2009
3:19 pm

Ms. Godzilla meet Ms. Mothra.

Bosch

May 21st, 2009
3:20 pm

Kamchak (if you’re around),

Ya’ see this?

http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/9597230/Ronaldo-ignoring-all-Real-rumors

The pretty one says he’s staying at Old Trafford.

I Rule You :-)/ You Whine :-(

May 21st, 2009
3:20 pm

He fried you liberals, didn’t he?

It must sting, ouch!

Brad Steel

May 21st, 2009
3:22 pm

Cheney/Satan – 2021

I use to thing that this was a funny and sarcastic notion. It’s looking a little too true now. Maybe he can breath some lie into the Stazi and KGB. He seems to be well on his way to moving the US toward our place on the Axis of Evil.

Bosch

May 21st, 2009
3:23 pm

AND he knew that George was dumber than Jeb – Jeb would have stood up to him and told him to “STFU and go back to your crypt old man.”

George American

May 21st, 2009
3:25 pm

It is so funny to see the liberals squirm when the GOP flexes its muscle and puts the liberal elite in their place (the media, Braney Frank, and Nancy Liar Pelosi).

RW-(the original)

May 21st, 2009
3:32 pm

I bet Cheney at least knows who the Secretary of Defense is, but the way Obama has been taking over the private sector maybe he made a weird deal with Microsoft and Bill Gates really is the SecDef.

Time to load the introductions into the prompter along with the other pap he reads to us. It sure was nice seeing an actual adult address us after BO got done though.

Kamchak

May 21st, 2009
3:38 pm

Bosch

NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jewcowboy

May 21st, 2009
3:40 pm

“It is so funny to see the liberals squirm when the GOP flexes its muscle and puts the liberal elite in their place ”

I want what George is taking. I’m just afraid I’ll see the purple monkeys.

Mrs. Godzilla

May 21st, 2009
3:41 pm

GOP Flexing it’s Muscle

http://www.tvcrazy.net/images/andy/wallpaper/barney_fife.jpg

eventually Andy had to take that one bullet away from him….

Logical Dude

May 21st, 2009
3:43 pm

Bosch @ 3:20
Ronaldo stays at ManU? Didn’t think there was a threat to him moving. . . well, I also thought Beckham would be back at the Galaxy at the beginning of the season too. . .

N.J,

May 21st, 2009
3:44 pm

Unfortunately there is not only a vast inconsistancy between the dates Bush appointees to the CIA claimed they informed Congressional Democrats of the use of “enhanced interrogation” (there many dates on which the CIA claims it informed the appropriate Congressional Comittee, which do not appear at all on the Congressional calendars, legally required…the content of the meetings can be unpublished, but the meetings have to appear on the calendars of both the Congress and each elected officials office calendars) but the Bush Administration asserted its total right to be the intermediary between Congress and the intelligence agencies shortly after the passage of the Patriot Act, which the administration interpreted as giving it the power to keep secrets from Congress. One example dated 2005, in which Senator Dianne Feinstein asked for information directly from the CIA and recieved this response:

To: Sen. Dianne Feinstein
FROM:
Alfred Cumming
Specialist in Intelligence and National Security
Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division
SUBJECT: Congress as a Consumer of Intelligence Information

This responds to your request for a discussion of Congress and its role as a consumer of national intelligence, and for a listing and a description of some of the U.S. Intelligence Community’s principal intelligence products, including an identification of those which the executive branch routinely shares with Congress, and those which it does not.

Limitations on Congressional Access to Certain National Intelligence

By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community. The President’s position also affords him the authority – which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted (1) – to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. (2) As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President (3) – in contrast to Members of Congress (4) – have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community’s intelligence more accurately than is Congress. (5)

In addition to their greater access to intelligence, the President and his senior advisors also are better equipped than is Congress to assess intelligence information by virtue of the primacy of their roles in formulating U.S. foreign policy. Their foreign policy responsibilities often require active, sustained, and often personal interaction, with senior officials of many of the same countries targeted for intelligence collection by the Intelligence Community. Thus the President and his senior advisors are uniquely positioned to glean additional information and impressions – information that, like certain sensitive intelligence information, is generally unavailable to Congress – that can provide them with an important additional perspective with which to judge the quality of intelligence.

Authorities Governing Executive Branch Control Over National Intelligence

The President is able to control dissemination of intelligence information to Congress because the Intelligence Community is part of the executive branch. It was created by law and executive order principally to serve that branch of government in the execution of its responsibilities. (6) Thus, as the head of the executive branch, the President generally is acknowledged to be “the owner” of national intelligence…

http://feinstein.senate.gov/crs-intel.htm

Cheney and the Republicans can make all the public assertions they want to in order to obfuscate their role in misleading Congress. It makes no difference. At the time they are now asserting they were telling Congress everything, they were asserting their power to tell Congress NOTHING.

Logical Dude

May 21st, 2009
3:48 pm

N.J. @ 3:12
EXACTLY! We, as Americans, do NOT torture, do NOT abduct people off the streets, do NOT put people in jail with no recourse, do NOT go into war without full intelligence and planned end game. Unfortunately, I have seen my country to all of these things, removing our rights in order to preserve our rights. . . I am saddened by this, but also have hope that these wrongs have been corrected or are on the path to being corrected.

Bosch

May 21st, 2009
3:48 pm

Kamchak,

Sorry dude, it’s better to hear bad news early. It’s probably all BS anyway – he’ll probably go.

Logical Dude,

David Beckham playing for the Galaxy is the most bizarre thing in all of soccerdom that has ever occured. I did enjoy watching his wife prance around though.

jewcowboy,

Seeing purple monkeys ain’t so bad – they’re kind of cute.

@@

May 21st, 2009
3:49 pm

reportedly but yet here you are jumping the gun, eh jay?

BTW, Who the Hell is Stanley McChrystal?” Obama’s new head man in Afghanistan.

“Who is he?” is trying to get at: what he has done before, and therefore what he is likely to do in his new command. And what he has done suggests that he is an extraordinary leader — and perhaps a ruthless one. That he is an unparalleled hunter of suspected terrorists — and perhaps the overseer of their torture. That he has favored targeted military action over broad counterinsurgency and nation-building — and that he may be bringing that dramatic shift in strategy to Afghanistan.

Both Cheney and Rumsfeld think very highly of McChrystal. At one time he was under their command.

This is just too good to be true.

This dude’s B-A-D!!!!

Taxpayer

May 21st, 2009
3:50 pm

Dang, Cheney threw the interrogators, the little people, under the bus while simultaneously building up his insanity plea. The coward.

N.J,

May 21st, 2009
4:01 pm

Unfortunately every claim by Cheney was made illegal by the United States when it acted as one of the major creators of the Nuremberg Conventions, in which “national security” was removed as a justification for the use of inhumane acts. The entire prosectution of the Nazi regime participants was run by Associate Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson. Jackson was also a U.S. Attorney General before being appointed to the court. Jackson was given free reign to design and implement the trials. In any event, the Nuremberg trials, which basically created a set of legal conditions with regard to various things that states do to people, that basically banned them forever and under any and all circumstances.

In a separate set of trials at Nuremberg, officials were found guilty and sentenced for simply not asking if the things they were being asked to do violated international law. In the “Ministry Cases” German and other officials were prosectuted and convicted simply for not asking if the deportation of citizens from one nation to another was a violation of international law or not.

Hillbilly Deluxe

May 21st, 2009
4:09 pm

Jewcowboy @3:17

I would respectfully disagree. The men who were waterboarded were big boys playing in a big boy game. The young boy at Dunaire was jsut a kid who evidently hadn’t done anything to anybody.

The point of my original comment was that we have seen this same subject here for quite sometime and I’ve yet to see anybody on either side of the debate move off their original position even a tiny fraction. The opinions will still be the same a month or two from now.

And I really would like to see some deep investigation done into the Dunaire story. I don’t know what happened but there’s just too many questions that haven’t been answered.

jewcowboy

May 21st, 2009
4:10 pm

Logical Dude,

“We, as Americans, do NOT torture, do NOT abduct people off the streets, do NOT put people in jail with no recourse, do NOT go into war without full intelligence and planned end game.”

Unfortunately we do, and there are those among us who wish for us to continue to do so. I am relieved my Grandfather, who served in WWII, is not alive to see what his country has become. He fought for ideals that the neo-cons trampled on.

jewcowboy

May 21st, 2009
4:17 pm

Hillbilly Deluxe,

I meaning to parrallel the fact that bullying is, in fact a form of torture. But you are correct that it is not a fair comparison.

“And I really would like to see some deep investigation done into the Dunaire story. I don’t know what happened but there’s just too many questions that haven’t been answered.”

I agree fully. The “non-biased” report smells a little like a cya for a school that is about to enter into litigation. There seems to be several dissenting reports from other parents that were interviewed and their concerns dismissed.

“The opinions will still be the same a month or two from now.”

Right again. Rehashing the same subject over and over rarely yields a change of heart.

godless heathen

May 21st, 2009
4:19 pm

9/10 mentality is rampant here.

This is war, ladies and gentlemen. If you don’t have the stomach for it, then stay out of the way. Good men like Mr. Cheney will protect your arse.

Three murderous terrorists get waterboarded and you think all hell had to come to the surface.

RW-(the original)

May 21st, 2009
4:21 pm

I hope Andy isn’t near a TV today. Minnesota is torturing the White Sox 20-0 and still batting in the 7th.

Non-Believer

May 21st, 2009
4:24 pm

None of us have all the facts, yet all of us view the facts available, form our opinions, and argue with each other’s views. I don’t trust any politicians – no matter what party they’re part of. I think this whole thing about torture is a convenient smoke screen to keep us from worrying about real problems like our social security, health care, our 401K, and other things that matter to the average person. All members of congress get 100% of their pay for life after serving one term – they also get 100% free medical care. Is it any wonder they don’t care enough to fix social security and health care? As long as they keep us distracted from the real problems, they can keep on helping themselves to our national treasury.

jewcowboy

May 21st, 2009
4:28 pm

godless heathen,

“9/10 mentality is rampant here.”

Perhaps we have grown up a little and are thinking with our minds and not our Dick Cheney’s.

Sorry but that is a throw away comment. Easily said with nothing to back it up but emotion. When you lose the ideals you are fighting for, why should you continue to fight? For revenge, an eye for an eye?

As Americans we should be better than that. Did the U.S. torture POW’s in WWII?

N.J,

May 21st, 2009
4:40 pm

And Cheney seems to have learned much from his historical predecessors who asserted that one could make a lie virtually the truth by repeating it.

The United States played one of the largest roles in the creation of the very laws by which the techniques Cheney says were “legal and necessary” illegal and never allowed no matter what the circumstances are. Torture, arrest without being told the charges and being allowed to see the accuser, without right to trial and legal counsel is not just American law, but in the circumstance after 9/11 are still international law as well as American law.

America presided over the execution of many leaders who made the same assertions that Cheney is making now.

Especially since the trials at Guantanamo were asserted to be military tribunals, the Nuremberg Conventions are even more applicable. Among the most important is that there are no statutes of limitations on those who violate the terms of the conventions.

I find it quite amusing that Bush and Cheney use to frequently refer to Saddams “torture rooms” but never to their own.

Even if the Bush administration tried to fudge the Geneva Conventions and their applicability to the case, its not possible to eliminate the Nuremberg Conventions which have two parts. One was a military tribunal and the other was a tribunal against civilian officials, elected or appointed, who participated in “crimes against humanity” the chief of which was the use of torture or “enhanced interogation” no matter what it is called. The wise jurists of the Nuremberg Trials witnessed the “rebranding” of torture and genocide and presumed that in the future similar attempts to rebrand these things again would occur and so set definitions to these act as crimes against humanity, no matter what a nation called them, OR what laws a nation changed in order to get around them.

To put it simply, the United States, in its role as one of the chief prosecutors at the military tribunals at Nuremberg made the acts at Guantanamo illegal, and made any law that America later passed on its own to get around those conditions illegal as well.

The constitution asserts that any treaty that the United States enters into under one president, and is ratified by Congress, becomes the law of the land, and can only be superceded by an act of Congress which directly revokes the original ratification, or if a nation we have entered into a treaty with violates it first.

Since the United States is a signatory of the Geneva Conventions applying to torture, and is a signatory to the Nuremberg Conventions as well as the Vienna Convention, these three are the law of the land, and no president who later disagrees with them is allowed to violate them regardless of the circumtances. He can ask Congress to repeal the ratification of those treaties, but he cannot break the law, regardless of what he thinks of those law any more than a person who violates drug laws can decide he cant be arrested for violating them simply because he thinks they are unfair. You change the laws, you dont simply break them because they are impeding on what you beleive is your right.

There are even memos between Bush and Alberto Gonzales that state that these treaties DO apply and no one, not even the President of the United States, is exempt from them regardless of the reasons for using them:

. January 25, 2002
White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales writes a memo urging President George Bush to declare the war in Afghanistan exempt from the Geneva convention. In the memo, the White House lawyer references a 1996 law passed by Congress, known as the War Crimes Act, that law banned any Americans from committing war crimes – defined in part as “grave breaches” of the Geneva convention. The memo warns that the law applies to “U.S. officials” and that punishments for violators “include the death penalty.”

Subsequent to January 25, 2002
Secretary Powell writes a memo arguing that Alberto Gonzales’ attempt to declare the war in Afghanistan exempt from the Geneva convention undermines more than a century of U.S. policy and practice.

“It will reverse over a century of U.S. policy and practice in supporting the Geneva conventions and undermine the protections of the law of war for our troops, both in this specific conflict and in general. … It may provoke some individual foreign prosecutors to investigate and prosecute our officials and troops. … We will be challenged in international fora (UN Commission on Human Rights; World Court; etc.).”

Bush declares pre-emptive war in Iraq which constitutes a “grave breach” of the Geneva convention as Iraq posed no “imminent threat” to the U.S.

“Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.” (United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Geneva, Fall 1990)

Geneva Convention:
“Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission … causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.”

“No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.”

“Prisoners of war shall enjoy complete latitude in the exercise of their religious duties, including attendance at the service of their faith, on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by the military authorities.”

“The following acts are and shall remain prohibited … cruel treatment and torture; … Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; ”

The Nuremberg codes went into a great deal of depth and detail describing what was permissable and what was not, down to medical experimentation on prisoners which could only be done if the prisoner volunteers.

“Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory … are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”

(Geneva Convention, 1949)

Actually, neither Cheney, nor Bush have the legal authority to authorize the use of torture under ANY circumstance, either on civilians OR “enemy combatants”, regardless of the anticipated scenarios. Enemy combatants ARE a protected class under all of the codes mentioned above.

Nuremberg enumerated FOUR sets of crimes:

The Nuremberg Charter enumerated four crimes. In highlighted form, these were:

Conspiracy to wage war of aggression;

Actual launching of aggressive war;

Killing, plundering and destroying in a war not justified by militarily necessity; and

Crimes against humanity.

at the same time a set of war trials was occuring elsewhere. The much less discussed Tokyo Trials, resulted in an even larger set of activities which are prohibited at all times, and which take precedent even over national security.

The United States, as a result of the Nuremberg Codes and previous Geneva Codes executed on Nazi, who had never committed a single act of genocide or torture against a single individual in the Third Reich.

Julius Streicher. His crime. Free Speech. Or free speech that was determined to have incited other to anti-semitic acts of violenve against Jews and other non-Aryans by the Nazi’s.

So much for Mike Savage:

Julius Streicher, for one, was executed on general principles. Although a loathsome sort, no evidence was presented linking Streicher to specific murders or the war. However, the tribunal concluded that publishing his vicious anti-Semitic tabloid constituted a crime against humanity because it incited others to murder. In truth, it differed more in focus than in content from some anti-Islamic vitriol heard nowadays from stage right.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, chief U.S. prosecutor, affirmed that the legacy of Nuremberg should be that the Germans stood trial not because they lost the war — but because they started it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/1006-35.htm

Joey

May 21st, 2009
4:55 pm

To Jay, what is the difference between a lie and a statement that he just doesn’t believe; or a statement that Jay doubts or is not sure of?

The only difference is who makes the statement. The only difference.

md

May 21st, 2009
4:56 pm

NJ,

Sheeesh.

Try just posting a link. Let the folks on here decide if they want to research it or not, otherwise its just your opinion like the rest of us.

jewcowboy

May 21st, 2009
4:58 pm

md,

“Sheeesh.”

I just had to giggle a bit because I had the same thought.

N.J,

May 21st, 2009
4:59 pm

Simply put, these treaties either created by, or entered into by the United States have made it illegal for anyone in the world, President or citizen, King or commoner, to authorize the use of torture on civilians or combatants, regardless of time, place, or circumstance. Even nations that have abolished the death penalty have excluded the use of the death penalty in these cases if they are signatories to these treaties. No president of the United States can legally circumvent these treaties. This was agreed to when the treaties were signed and ratified, as this condition is part of each of these treaties.

Curious Observer

May 21st, 2009
5:00 pm

NJ @4:40: Perhaps those who consistently attempt to justify the use of torture ought to consider the fate of Streicher. He was, I believe, the seventh of a long line of Nazi war criminals hanged on that night.

jewcowboy

May 21st, 2009
5:03 pm

N.J,

I like the summation. I have to read numerous documents for work, and those long posts create eye strain ;)

Joey

May 21st, 2009
5:10 pm

Jay, you are so good at finding lying Republicans. It is uncanny how you see through them. I think maybe it is the glasses you wear. The magic glasses. One pair hides lies and the other exposes lies.

Try one time in your career to wear the “exposes lies” glasses when you look at Democrats.

md

May 21st, 2009
5:17 pm

Joey,

That would alter the agenda. He gets paid for his agenda, we don’t.

N.J,

May 21st, 2009
5:42 pm

Unfortunately there is no evidence that Pelosi is lying. There is evidence that the Bush appointed CIA officials are again lying about the events leading to the war in Iraq, which has not only been established, but asserted by George Bush when he said “we made some mistakes getting into this war with regard to intelligence, but we have to move on from here” to the current assertions that Democrats on the Intelligence Committee knew the details about “enhanced interogation, because after the passage of the Patriot Act, the Bush Administration asserted that Congress only had the right to know what the Bush Administration wanted to tell them for purposes of “national security”

Many, many career officers in the CIA tell a totally different story about who was briefed and what those briefings were than the ones being told by Bush appointees who , first, vetted the information that the intelligence committees were told, and secondly, chose who would do the briefings, and three, prevented all independent verification by members of the intelligence committees through their own investigations.

Its pretty much only Bush appointees who assert that Pelosi and others like Bob Graham were informed, and career CIA agents with 20 and 30 years active service with the CIA who assert that the Bush Administrations appointees who became their bosses, purposefully misled Congress about enhanced interogation.

The original document from the CIA states merely that Pelosi and others were briefed that EIT’s were being used, and that the EIT’s they were using were legal and asserts directly that waterboarding was NOT being used. Pelosi was briefs ONCE on September 2nd, 2002, and the document states directly, that waterboarding was NOT being used.

After the passage of the Patriot Act, the Bush administration asserted its power to only inform the MAJORITY party head of the Intelligence Committee, and then they would pass on the information they thought Congress needed to know on exactly that basis. Need to know.

For the rest of the Bush term, intelligence was only passed on to what came to be known as the “gang of four”. Only the chairman and ranking members of the House and Senate Intelligence commitee were briefed on any and ALL intelligence related issues by the time that it is asserted Pelosi was briefed. Even the most comprehensive document presented to Congress by Porter Goss mentions NOTHING about the type of EIT being used, it simply asserts that they are using them and that it is getting useful intelligence from them, but offering no proof at all that the intelligence gained under torture is responsible for the prevention of terrorist attacks. It is a five page masterful work of political obfuscation, but in fact does not mention any kind of enhanced interogation techniques at all. From the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and entitled “Summary of the High Value Terrorist Program”

http://www.defenselink.mil/pdf/thehighvaluedetaineeprogram2.pdf

Porter Goss, recalls going into detail about the type of methods being USED. And of course later Goss is promoted to National Intelligence Chief.

as the New York Times points out;

As was common with the most secret programs, the C.I.A. chose not to brief the entire committees about the interrogation methods but only the so-called Gang of Four — the top Republican and Democrat on the Senate and House committees. The rest of the committee members would be fully briefed only in 2006.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22detain.html?pagewanted=all

All other members of the gang of four state they were not told WHAT methods were being used at that time, told that the methods that were being used had been determined to be legal by White House Counsel.

But even in the 2006 briefing document on the program, not a word about the nature of enhanced interogation is mentioned. It is simply mentioned that they are being used, and the White House has had determined that all methods being used were legal.

Another problem is that ever since the Church Comittee in the 1980’s the law required the president to brief all 40 members of the two congressional oversite committees and records of the briefings are to be kept. In this case Bush limited the briefings to either 4 or 8 people on the committee and did so orally in violation of the legal requirements to keep a written record of the briefings, ostensiblly because copies of unrelated documents had been found in a congressional assistants garbage pail rather than shredded. The briefing can only be limited to a part of the two intelligence committees in exceptional circumstances.

One member of the gang of four Richard Shelby of Alabama refuses to say ANYTHING about the briefings at all. So far, the majority of those briefed state that they were told nothing about waterboarding being used, and that all techniques that were being used, were legal, and would have no lasting effect on those subjected to it. Something which doctors who have examined those who were subjected to waterboarding claims is false. Both of the two who were subjected to waterboaring have suffered sever damage from the procedures, which regardless of what some Americans think about it, is simply illegal.

These same people are all to quick to note that when Iran uses such techniques, or the Soviets did use them, there was something terribly inappropriate when they did so but the claims made by Iran and the Soviets are exactly the same one Cheney makes. The people they were using these techniques on were a threat to their national security, and every one had violated the laws of their own nations.

getalife

May 21st, 2009
5:52 pm

“In speech, Cheney again links 9/11, WMDs, and Iraq.”

Still spewing lies to justify torture and Iraqi genocide.

Pathetic.

N.J,

May 21st, 2009
5:55 pm

Finally, Porter Goss has to get to the position that Pelosi knew that waterboarding was being used because she was told that all the methods being used by the CIA had been determined to be legal:

*********************************************************************

Goss agrees the CIA didn’t tell Pelosi waterboarding had been used.’s statement on Waterboarding

Go step by step..

The republicans said that Pelosi had been told that waterboarding was being used

Pelosi said that she was told that the Justice Department had ruled that certain “enhanded intrerroation practicses” were legal. But that she was not told that Waterboarding had been used.

Republicans then danced around the question of whether she was right.But did so in ways that prove the opposite of what they’re saying.. Two examples;:

KIt Bond weighed in (yawn) by saying Pelois had attacked the fine agency that was fighting the terrorists Translation:I know she wasn’t told waterboarding had been used so I’ll change the subject. .

Much more important Porter Goss weighed in by saying ‘if you’re told something has been found to be legal of course you should know that means it’s been used.’ . If she had actually been told that waterboarding had been used would he have said ‘if you’re told something has been found to be legal ,of couse you should know that means it’s been used? Or would he have said ’she was told waterboarding had been used’.

Bond and Goss could not have acknowledged any more clearly that she had not been told waterboarding had been used. If she had been told that , how many milliseconds do you think Goss would have waited before saying :’She was told. I was there. I know.

They haven’t said that. So that isn’t true.

***************************************************************

So far not a single Republican who asserts that Pelosi was told that waterboarding was being used will assert it by simply saying “I was there during the briefings when she was and they said that waterboaring was being used”

They have to get to this position by a rather convoluted route.

The primary person who is asserting that Pelosi was told, also destroyed CIA videotapes of agents involved in enhanced interrogation AFTER he had been ordered to preserve the tapes

In every speech so far, Goss avoids making the DIRECT statement that Pelosi had been briefed and the words “Waterboarding” were used in the briefings. The only other Republican who was present, is keeping completely silent on the issue.

The facts are that:

Porter Goss says Pelosi should have known “the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed.” But he doesn’t say she should have known “the techniques on which they were briefed had already been employed.” Which is a critical part of her complaint–that CIA did not tell Congress that waterboarding and other techniques “were used” … that “they were using that.” This briefing is always described as occuring in “fall 2002.” Even interpreting “fall” broadly to include all of September, that means the briefing took place after they had already waterboarded Abu Zubaydah 83 times in a month.

md

May 21st, 2009
5:59 pm

“There is evidence that the Bush appointed CIA officials are again lying about the events leading to the war in Iraq, which has not only been established, but asserted by George Bush when he said “we made some mistakes getting into this war with regard to intelligence, but we have to move on from here””

Sunk your credibility on this one right off the bat with that statement. “with regard to intelligence” doesn’t necessarily equate to CIA. As I recall, there was also intell used from many foreign countries such as Russia, Britain, Isreal, etc.

But as we know, that wouldn’t fit your agenda. If you insist on posting so much propoganda, at least shorten it a little so we don’t have to scroll so far.

N.J,

May 21st, 2009
6:07 pm

Basically Cheney still asserts that Iraq had WMD’s because to state the opposite places him in a position of having started a “war of aggression” in violation of all international treaty law signed by the United States.

The assertions made for torture are pretty much the same. They tortured captured Al Qaeda members in an attempt to try to get anyone to assert under torture, that there were such links and even under torture, they could not get anyone to make that assertion. Dictators have not had problem getting people to confess stuff that was 100 percent impossible for them to have been involved in, but the CIA could not get a single confession linking Al Qaeda and Saddam.

getalife

May 21st, 2009
6:17 pm

If cheney admit he is mental, why do cons still support them?

I have to question con’s sanity too.

md

May 21st, 2009
6:39 pm

“Basically Cheney still asserts that Iraq had WMD’s because to state the opposite places him in a position of having started a “war of aggression” in violation of all international treaty law signed by the United States.”

Funny how an agenda works.

It wasn’t too long ago that the far left was claiming the Reagan Administration armed Sadam with chemical and biological weapons in the Iran-Iraq war.

Then along comes Bush/Cheney and suddenly there is no way Iraq had WMD’s.

I sure wish you guys would make up your minds.

Copyleft

May 21st, 2009
7:29 pm

“Don’t condone torture, don’t care that it happened to them.”

Pat, you’re contradicting yourself within the same SENTENCE now. You don’t condone torture, but you also don’t care if it happens to people that are (probably) terrorists? “We never did it, and anyway, they deserved it!”

That’s the sort of stuff you’d hear from Cheney’s press secretary… or a five-year old standing over a broken cookie jar. Make up your mind, please.

SOUTHERN ATL

May 21st, 2009
7:37 pm

Lawrence O’donnell Calls Cheney Speech Sleazy And An Abomination

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je5e6_vGIvg

Where was Dick Cheney during the Republican National Convention?????His time is up and he needs to go away!!! If he wants to achieve more, the he can run for President in 2012.Enough of him and from him already!!

ty webb

May 21st, 2009
8:13 pm

Oh snap, no he didn’t. Lawrence O’donnell. Well that’s it I’m changing my opinion. When L-dog speaks, it’s on.

[...] post by Jay aggregated by [...]

md

May 21st, 2009
8:58 pm

MSNBC

I was wondering who the three people were that watched that channel. One down 2 to go.

Tom

May 21st, 2009
9:43 pm

md: did the period between 1984 (when Reagan handed the chemical and biological weapons to Saddam) and 2003 (by which time Saddam hadn’t had WMD of any sort in at least a decade) just completely pass you by? Were you off your meds and on the streets that whole time?

md

May 21st, 2009
11:02 pm

“(by which time Saddam hadn’t had WMD of any sort in at least a decade)”

Keep believeing that one and I’ll sell you some good bottom land in Fl.

Why would any country not arm themselves knowing all their enemies are armed? Just because they weren’t at the local walmart doesn’t mean they aren’t/weren’t there. If its me, I’m hiding as much as I can get away with.

Same reason nukes will never go away, only a fool would trust his enemy to actually do away with them.

Your the kind of guy I want to be in a gun fight with. You drop yours first, then I’ll drop mine. Please.

Pennsylvanian

May 22nd, 2009
8:15 am

Good morning. It is a new day. Tribunals are back on the ok list. Maybe in a week POTUS BO will discover a perfect place to house detainees. At Gitmo.

Poor Harry Reid. Had to play stupid to cover the lack of a plan by POTUS. Wait a second – he is not playing stupid? He is stupid?

Jimmy Carter is relieved, knowing he will not be the worst POTUS in history.

barry morris

May 22nd, 2009
10:33 am

How about a plane flight for Dick Cheney to the Hague, Netherlands before the International Courts and let them question him about condoning water boarding. Dick Cheney before the International Courts will just convince them hat he is guilty of International War Crimes and they will make a decision to either imprison him for the rest of his life or sentence him to death by hanging.

On thing Dick Cheney isn’t smart enough to keep his mouth shut as he is only digging his own hole deeper and deeper.

SaveOurRepublic

May 22nd, 2009
11:19 am

The major problem with torture, is the slippery slope to the same techniques being utilized on Americans. Thanks to Orwellian legislation such as the (so-called) “Patriot”, Military Commissions & John Warner Defense Authorization Acts, any American labeled an “enemy combatant” will have their Constitutional rights to legal representation & trial by jury removed. This outrageous legislation should be overturned as it’s in direct violation of the Constitution.

If there was 100% certainty that these techniques would be relegated to legitimate terrorists (NOT/never Americans), then (theoretically) I’d not have a major issue with it. However, the “enemy combatant” label was (intentionally) vaguely defined so it could be applied to Americans. If you doubt this, then research these 3 Acts and ask yourself why (Orwellian) DHS has been trying to label Americans (who support full Constitutional adherence, vets, etc.) as “extremists” & “potentially violent”?? These legislative acts were clearly meant to bolster the (rapidly growing) police state in order to suppress the populace (who won’t fully acquiesce to the Globalist agenda)!

http://www.infowars.com

N.J,

May 22nd, 2009
12:26 pm

Yup. It turned out that Saddam uses all of the chemical weapons the U.S. armed him with during the Iran/Iraq war in the 1980’s except for a tiny stockpile that was found and had aged to where the chemicals in them had deteriorated. He was never able to make much of his own, as it was Germany that constructed his pesticide plants for him, after being asked by Reagan to do so, and they were aware of the plant’s capabilities. Same thing with his Osirak nuclear reactor.

The Republican assertion that Saddam still had WMD’s by 2003 was false.

It relies on the technique of lying by telling partial truths. The last time the U.S. gave Iraq such weapons was 20 years earlier, and he either used what was good back in the 1980’s or the stock had deteriorated into being useless.

Just as we need to keep replacing the fission cores in our current stock of nuclear weapons, old chemical weapons have to be replaced because they have a relatively short shelf life.

An exact copy of the one France built for Israel at Dimona. Saddam didnt have the capacity for enriching uranium or extracting plutonium from the fuel rods, even if the plant went operational. On the other hand, Iran is now the worlds second largest supplier of military missiles, because it copied the designs of the smaller missiles it got from Reagan during Iran Contra (this time the missiles were sold to Iran by the United States, through Israel)

N.J,

May 22nd, 2009
12:48 pm

Or as the international inspectors said. Even if Iraq had chemical weapons as late as 1998, by 2003 they would have deteriorated into being completely useless. Sure you can have the separate stable chemicals that WMDs are made from, but Iraq didnt have the techology to leave them inside of a bomb so they could be combined at the time the weapon was being used.

The best Iraq was capable of was emptying out a regular explosive aerial bomb, filling it with two separate binary agents, rolling it on a runway for a half an hour, and then screw the cap of the bomb on order to get them to mix and then it would have to use the weapon within few hours to be useful. Even then only about 40 percent of the chemical in the bomb would have converted to sarin of cyclosarin. Using the only process that Iraq had, the one described above, we are talking in the ones and twos, of WMD.’s not the hundreds or thousands.

Saddam simply didnt have the technologies needed to create useful chemical weapons in quantity or to delivery them accurately after the ones we gave him were used up, and the inspectors verified that he had used up all but a few shell the United States had given him and in those that remained the chemicals had deteriorated into being useless within a few years of receiving them.

Next, Iraq had no “proximity fuzing” technology. All of its own bombs use impact fuzing.

The inspectors sent to Iraq had decades of military experience with WMD’s. They found Iraq particularly incapable of weaponizing anything.

Using their only bomb technology, impact fuses, any chemical weapons placed in one of their aerial bombs would have been destroyed by the blast or due to the inacuracy of their missiles buried in the rubble of anything they hit with one.

The guys who went into Iraq with UNSCOM and UNMOVIC were the last real people to have experience with chemical weapons since the treaties that made them illegal. And that is who went to Iraq with the inspectors. A bunch of ex military men who worked with chemical and biological weapons before the treaties were signed.

Fact is that any Iraqi WMDs had been destroyed after th Gulf War.

basementfrog

May 22nd, 2009
8:30 pm

Let DICK go to Geneva to stand trial for crimes against humanity and see if he is innocent.

He shouldn’t have any problem with that if he believes what he is saying.

On the other hand, the man is the same as all guilty men, running around telling everyone that he did nothing wrong or I had to for the good of the country.

He just sould like a man who doesn’t want to be jailed.

And Obama isn’t man enough to put him there.

William H. in Lithonia

May 25th, 2009
4:31 am

It’s not fear of the terrorists, it’s the fear that they will be aquitted. After all, they have not been proven guilty of anything yet.

And if they were indeed tortured any evidence obtained by that torture must be thrown out. Republicans are more afraid their Bush administration will be found guilty of violating 4rth Amendment Rights, that’s the real fear.

After all, their reasoning for going to war in the first place was proven false – along with the cooked up facts they sold it to us with.

I know some do not think our rights extend beyond our boundary – but wasn’t one of the reasons used to sell us the Iraq War that we were ‘exporting our democratic values’? Just what do unalienable rights mean anyway? Are they human rights or not?

You can’t have it both ways, but hypocritical republicans by nature will try. I’m glad we have some people in office now that believe government should be for the good of humanity, unlike the last regime.