Cheney Admits He Authorized Torture Against Guantanamo Detainees

[Chris]

Cheney continues to recruit for AQ......


Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, has defended the use of waterboarding on prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and said the prison should remain open until the "war on terror" ends.

In an interview with US broadcaster ABC News on Monday, Cheney admitted he was aware that waterboarding was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged planner of the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US.

Waterboarding is used in interrogation to make a detainee feel as if he is drowning.

Asked whether he thought it was appropriate, Cheney replied: "I do."

Asked if he thought, in hindsight, any of the tactics went too far, Cheney said, "I don't."

"I was aware of the programme, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared, as the agency in effect came in and wanted to know what they could and couldn't do," Cheney said.

Al Jazeera English - Americas - Cheney defends waterboarding use

 

[glockmail]

Of course you conveniently ignore the fact that the US citizens previously tried for using water torture by U.S. authorities were tried in a U.S. court under U.S. law.

Link please so I can prove that you are referring to an unrelated incident.

 

[xsited1]

We don't have to agree on it. Water torture has previously been defined as torture.

So it depends on who defines torture and how they define it. We agree on that.

Sorry, but I prefer not to make arguments based on what I would think when in a highly emotional state. Nor is your hypothetical likely to occur anywhere off the set of "24". I know conservatives like to argue based on emotion - I don't. Torture is a crime. Dick Cheney is guilty of ordering it. Period.

Why not? It was a perfectly valid question and you decided not to answer it. Perhaps you fear what your answer might be. It might reveal a different answer than you want to accept. I understand. (Now why you would bring conservatives into your answer, I haven't a clue. Perhaps you would like to answer that.) Of course, the real answer is that you are probably not qualified to answer it. When you get older and more mature, I'm sure you'll come around.

 

[Xenophon]

The UN Charter does not define what an illegal combatant is and it certainly doesn't say you can torture anybody. Seriously, you just made that up, you're not fooling anyone.

Again, it certainly does and you prove you don't know what you are talking about.

Which court has original jurisdiction over DC?

The answer is that the judicial DOES NOT have authority over the executive, you should have learned this in 5th grade, none of the three branches trumps the others.

Only Congress could bring a president to trial based on actions he takes using his authority, and they would have to have grounds in law to do it.

What is relivent? Are you denying the fact that water torture is torture?

You posting what about something you don't know about I now declare is torture and you should be tried.

Do you understand that analogy?

If you cannot define the term what makes you believe you can acuse someone of it.

You do realize you have contributed virtually nothing to this conversation?

Do you realize you've no idea what you are talking about?

Your entire argument is "You don't know what you're talking about, and I do, so there!" You have provided very little factual evidence to back your assertions, all you have done is assert that your assertions can be backed by evidence without actually doing it.

Educate yourself my friend, I'm not here to fill in the mile wide gaps in your knowledge, I simply point them out. If you wish to intelligently discuss a topic, at least understand baic civics of how our government works, how the UN was set up and how this all interacts in the current world, it's clear you have little understanding of this, thus when you say i contribute nothing, you are wrong.

I point out you are wasting our time because you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I'm not going to read any more of your links. You have decided that waterboarding is torture.

No, the U.S. courts have made that decision. Have you read anything I've posted?

In the first link here Cheney directly says we don't torture,

It would be awfully convenient if the torturer got to define what legally qualified as torture, but unfortunately for Cheney that's not the case.

so far from proving your assertion that he has ADMITTED torture it disproves it.

LOL! so if I admit to killing someone in cold blood I'm not guilty of murder so long as I choose to personally define the act as not murder.

So far you haven't backed this up with a quote from Cheney where he admits we tortured. Until you can do that I'm not really interested. I'm pretty sure you can't because if Cheney had done what you suggest I don't think it would take you this many times of not proving anything to have cleared this up.

Are you seriously this dense ?

1) Cheney ADMITTED to approving a program of "enhanced interrogation techniques"
2) It is known one of those techniques is water torture.
3) It is a long standing legal precedent (and simple common sense) that water torture is torture.
4) Therefore Cheney admitted to ordering torture.

Do I need to further simplify this?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Link please so I can prove that you are referring to an unrelated incident.

Here's a link to a post of mine on another board:
Cheney Admits to War Crimes @ TigerDroppings.com

(I'm negatiger on that board because I was banned as SpidermanTUba)

 

[SpidermanTuba]

So it depends on who defines torture and how they define it. We agree on that.

No, it depends on how torture is defined in our legal system. As it so happens, water torture is defined as torture by legal precedent.

Why not? It was a perfectly valid question

No, actually, it was a completely invalid question.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

SpidermanTUba:Which court has original jurisdiction over DC?
Xenophon: The answer is that the judicial DOES NOT have authority over the executive,

LOL! No, that's definitely not the answer. You are the one lecturing me on civics, yet you think the name of the federal court which has original juridiction in D.C. is "that the judicial DOES NOT have authority over the executive"


Why does the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court preside over impeachment trials of the President in the Senate? I thought the judiciary had no authority over the executive? Could it be, that you just simply don't know what the fuck you're talking about?

The President and Vice President can be held to account in a criminal proceeding either following their term or following removal from office after impeachment. It says so right in the Constitution.

Article I Section 4: .

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Educate yourself my friend, I'm not here to fill in the mile wide gaps in your knowledge, I simply point them out. If you wish to intelligently discuss a topic, at least understand baic civics of how our government works, how the UN was set up and how this all interacts in the current world, it's clear you have little understanding of this, thus when you say i contribute nothing, you are wrong.

No, really, the UN Charter still does not say you can torture illegal combatants. You can pretend all you want, you've still brought a total of zero factual evidence to your side of the argument. You are literally just making things up. Not to mention the UN Charter isn't even relevant to the conversation, we're talking about US law here. Do you understand the difference between the UN and the US? Do you understand that the what the UN Charter says isn't just something you make up in your head to make people think you're smart?

 

[geonerd20]

The old saying goes " Anything's fair in love and war"! And this interaction with Al Qaida is certainly no love affair! I really have no problem with torturing people like Khalid Sheik Mohamed, and other high-value targets like him. My only complaint related to him is that once they got all the information they needed from him, they should have made him "disappear". Now he will have to stand trial, in what appears to be a kangaroo court, with no teeth.

 

[glockmail]

Here's a link to a post of mine on another board:
Cheney Admits to War Crimes @ TigerDroppings.com

(I'm negatiger on that board because I was banned as SpidermanTUba)

You offer three unlinked examples. Assuming that they are all legit, only one involves prosecution of a US citizen for water boarding of an "insurgent", which for your benefit I will assume refers to an enemy who has not abided by international standards af war conduct. The problem is with this example, however, is that it occurred in 1901, or 45 years prior to the GC.

 

[driveby]

SpidermanTuba willfully LIES to YOU !!!

 

[Xenophon]

LOL! No, that's definitely not the answer.

Yes it is youngster, no 'court' has authority over the executive branch, try reading the Constitution some time.

As I have told you several times, this is all above your head, you need to do a lot of reading and become familar with how the USA works and it would save you a lot of embarrassment that you are now recieving.

 

[Chris]

Yes it is youngster, no 'court' has authority over the executive branch, try reading the Constitution some time.

As I have told you several times, this is all above your head, you need to do a lot of reading and become familar with how the USA works and it would save you a lot of embarrassment that you are now recieving.

He explained it quite well, you are just talking shit.

 

[del]

He explained it quite well, I am just talking shit.

fixed that for you.

 

[Chris]

fixed that for you.

No, you lie as usual.

 

[del]

Yes, I lie as usual.

that's two.
virtue is its own reward, no need to thank me.

 

[Chris]

that's two.
virtue is its own reward, no need to thank me.

You continue to lie.

 

[del]

I continue to lie.

third time's the charm.

 

[Chris]

third time's the charm.

You continue to lie.

 

[del]

I'm still dumber than a box of rocks.

no argument here.