Cheney Calls for full Release of Memos

[xsited1]

Terrible.

So let's do away with jury trials, and courts for that matter, because we know that sometimes lets bad people go.

Let's allow random seize and seizure. That might prevent a death.

It's OK to torture other Americans. That might prevent a death.

That is where your logic goes.

Do you have any children? If you answered 'yes', do you love your children more than anything?

Yes I have and I love my children. Not more than anything. There are some principles that I would sacrifice my children for, and myself for first if possible.

Do you have children? Yes Do you love them? Yes

Would you do away with jury trials, and courts for that matter, if it might save your child?
No, not for American citizens.

Would you allow people to be nabbed off the street and locked away in secret forever if it might save your child?
No, not for American citizens.

Would you allow random seize and seizure, if it might save your child?
No, not for American citizens.

Would you allow Americans to be tortured, if it might save your child?
That depends on the person. If they are a known terrorist, I probably would. If they were a suspect, I probably wouldn't.

Would you sell out America if it might save your child?
You'll have to be more specific. What do you mean by 'sell out America'?

You ask a lot of questions. See my answers above.

 

[Iriemon]

Waterboarding is one thing.

This is entirely another... (graphic content warning)

THE DANIEL PEARL BEHEADING VIDEO

That clip would be relevant if anyone was suggesting that we should start beheading people. I haven't seen that, fortunately.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Street-level work with violent gang members

Why do you think I wouldn't have the 'stones' to do it?

She sounds like another tired version of a community organizer.

Perhaps I am wrong, but that would certainly appear to be the case.

So what do i sound like there fruitcake?

 

[Article 15]

If you lost a loved one to a terrorist attack and found out later that it could have been avoided had the CIA obtained information using waterboarding, you would care.

Appeal to emotion.

 

[WillowTree]

THE DANIEL PEARL BEHEADING VIDEO

Graphic, but fast. Frankly, there are worse ways to die.

I sure as hell can't think of any.. other than burning to death or jumping from 110 stories to my death. I can't for the life of me understand why you lefties wish that on your fellow countrymen.. cause you know the terrorists want to do it bigger and badder.. but you choose to be "good"

 

[Sinatra]

well you lefties have a choice, win by doing whatever it takes,, or letting your daughters live under Sharia law.. that's the choice.

Are you calling me a lefty? HILARIOUS.

well if you aren't then choose. choose for your daughter, you gonna fight to win or does the Taliban get her? which?

They simply do not see terrorism as a threat - they have grown conveniently comfortable in their tirades against Bush, American ,the military, war, etc.

Sadly, another attack will come, and then all of these moral convenience will be stomped into oblivion for a few more years, until the passage of time makes it once again convenient.

 

[Iriemon]

Do you have any children? If you answered 'yes', do you love your children more than anything?

Yes I have and I love my children. Not more than anything. There are some principles that I would sacrifice my children for, and myself for first if possible.

Do you have children? Yes Do you love them? Yes

Would you do away with jury trials, and courts for that matter, if it might save your child?
No, not for American citizens.

Would you allow people to be nabbed off the street and locked away in secret forever if it might save your child?
No, not for American citizens.

Would you allow random seize and seizure, if it might save your child?
No, not for American citizens.

Would you allow Americans to be tortured, if it might save your child?
That depends on the person. If they are a known terrorist, I probably would. If they were a suspect, I probably wouldn't.

Would you sell out America if it might save your child?
You'll have to be more specific. What do you mean by 'sell out America'?

You ask a lot of questions. See my answers above.

I did. And that is why I asked these question. It should only take you a couple minutes to answer them. You can handle it.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

I'll go along with that. The rest is just an political blather and making excuses for waterboarding like the Japanese in WWII, the Gestapo, and the Khmer Rouge.

Jeez, I remeber when Bush was president these same type of folks were chastizing people for not supporting the president's policies, saying it was un-American. Guess not when the shoe is on the other foot.

Actually he is not making excuses for anything. He strongly disagrees with The Prophet's publication of the CIA Guantanamo material and feels that those who support doing this / an adminstration who does this (party-neutral) contribute to puting our country in deeper danger than it needs to be.

The information was already public record. You right wingers seem to be really hard on Obama. Is it because he's black? Can't help but wonder.

PS. Are you worried that we are less safe or Cheney/Bush are less safe? I hope they go to jail.

Less safe.

Do you think it is still 2004? Is anyone buying this douche bags bullshit?

CIA documents were declassified by The Prophet and were top secret prior to that. The rest of your post is pure bs.

 

[Article 15]

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Clinton mocks Cheney demand « - Blogs from CNN.com

Cheney told FOX News on Monday that the Obama administration should release classified documents revealing the results of aggressive interrogation techniques, so a more "honest debate" can take place about the efficacy of the practices.

"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," Cheney told FOX. "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."

Guess what, Dick Cheney? I don't CARE how effective waterboarding is. We're Americans, we DON'T DO THAT. That is not the way I want my country's secret services to operate. I don't care how effective it is. There are always other ways. If the choice is between having that information, and being a country that uses those kinds of torture tactics, and living without that information and suffering another attack, I would RATHER SUFFER ANOTHER ATTACK than become a country that tortures prisoners.

NO, you would not.

You are a liar.

You may not know it - but you are lying.

Who the fuck do you think you are?

 

[NOBama]

Clinton and EVERY other Loon in Congress had an opportunity to LOUDLY protest what the CIA was doing when they were doing it. So why didn't they make a big deal of it then, eh?

And how about the part part of the story that was meaningful:

"Well, it won't surprise you that I don't consider him to be a particularly reliable source of information," Clinton said, to laughter from many in the committee room.

Rohrbacher quickly hit back, saying, "Dick Cheney has asked for specific documents to be unclassified. We are not asking for your opinion of Dick Cheney. … If you want to maintain your credibility with us, what is your opinion on the release of those documents?"

Clinton ultimately did not answer the question, saying, "I believe we ought to get to the bottom of this entire matter. I think it's in the best interest of our country, and that is what the president believes, and that is why he has taken the actions he has."

What kind of person would stand by and watch their loved ones OR fellow American's be slaughtered knowing they could have prevented it? Calling them Loon's would be an insult to the Loon population.

I bet that if Clinton could save her kid by torturing some terrorist, she wouldn't hesitate. For that matter, neither would Obama.

IMHO.

EDIT: Nor would I.

 

[xsited1]

If you lost a loved one to a terrorist attack and found out later that it could have been avoided had the CIA obtained information using waterboarding, you would care.

Appeal to emotion.

Lose a child. Then tell me how that feels.

 

[WorldAHope]

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Clinton mocks Cheney demand « - Blogs from CNN.com



Guess what, Dick Cheney? I don't CARE how effective waterboarding is. We're Americans, WE DON'T DO THAT. That is not the way I want my country's secret services to operate. I don't care how effective it is. There are always other ways. If the choice is between having that information, and being a country that uses those kinds of torture tactics, and living without that information and suffering another attack, I would RATHER SUFFER ANOTHER ATTACK than become a country that tortures prisoners.

First of all, Cheney does not have any authority over the CIA, or anyone. He is an Ex-Employees.
And apparently, a worried Ex-Employee.
Worried that they will reveal his secret portfolio of illegal and extra-legal actions, so Cheney is now out in front of cameras and microphones, talking up a storm, trying to make as much bluster and noise as he can to avert what he knows would be happen -
If/When an Independent Special Prosecutor is setup by Congress or the AG, Cheney is toast.
It would be the quickest Indictment handed down by a Federal Grand Jury against American politicians.

As far as "preventing another terrorist attack": torture and "enhanced interrogation" have been characterized by some who worked in the interrogation rooms and some who were agents performing followup to the 'intel' obtained from the detainees as NOT providing quality intelligence.
No pending attacks were disclosed or prevented.

The detainees who talked said anything to stop the abuse.
This "enhanced interrogation' effort was nothing more than an illegal, secret, sadistic failure.

what are the spineless chicken shits afraid of? Release all the details.. all of them,, put up or shut the fuck up

I think that, when there is an formal investigation, most of the torture story will be out.
How about this guy, Condoleeza Rice's counsel, who objected tot eh legal justification and practise of abuse.
There was dissent within the Bush administration over the moral, ethical, legal reasons to exceed the written restrictions in our laws.
Pretty legalistic read, but he is a lawyer.

http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/category/one_time_tags/the_zelikow_memo

The underlying absurdity of the administration's position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. So the OLC must argue, in effect, that the methods and the conditions of confinement in the CIA program could constitutionally be inflicted on American citizens in a county jail.

In other words, Americans in any town of this country could constitutionally be hung from the ceiling naked, sleep deprived, water-boarded, and all the rest -- if the alleged national security justification was compelling. I did not believe our federal courts could reasonably be expected to agree with such a reading of the Constitution.
Philip Zelikow | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under:

* Bush Administration | Intelligence | Law | Terrorism | The Zelikow Memo

)

Advertisement

Keep politics out of the law when judging torture
Mon, 04/20/2009 - 11:19am

By Phil Zelikow

I will have more to say soon about interrogation policies in the Bush administration and the recently renewed debate over them, but for now I'll just say this: I am not eager to see any government officials prosecuted for crimes because of their zeal to protect their country. But crimes committed for worthy motives are still crimes, and we have institutions to sort this out.

So has anyone beside me found it troubling that President Obama is making announcements on who should be prosecuted for possible crimes? Whatever one's view of the matter, didn't the administration ardently announce its dedication to depoliticizing the Department of Justice? So why is it proper for the president to tell Attorney General Eric Holder what he should conclude?

There seem to be four possibilities here:

1. No unlawful conduct occurred. That judgment should, at least initially, be made by the Attorney General, free from political influence.

2. Unlawful conduct occurred, but the suspects have a credible defense -- that before undertaking their unlawful conduct, they relied in good faith on authoritative (though in retrospect, mistaken) legal opinions that the planned conduct would be lawful, and these opinions were also issued in good faith. Again, that judgment should be made, at least initially, by the attorney general, free from political influence.

3. Unlawful conduct occurred, and the legal opinions are not an adequate defense. Federal prosecutors, regular or specially appointed, then go to work. Again, the prosecutorial judgments should be free from inappropriate political influence.

4. Unlawful conduct occurred, and the legal opinions might not be an adequate defense. But President Obama decides to issue a blanket pardon for any possible criminal activity.

Or you have option #5, in which the president does not exercise his pardon power but instead, in effect, tells his attorney general what conclusions he should reach about whether federal officials broke the law.

Can you imagine what folks would say if a Republican president exercised option #5? I wish President Obama would just play this straight. He also does no favor to suspects if he politicizes the question of their innocence.
Philip Zelikow

 

[Ravi]

I'd torture someone if I thought it would save my child from pain or death and then I'd deal with whatever consequences the law decided were due me.

This is not the same thing as legalizing torture or institutionalizing torture...which is what we did in regard to those in Gitmo.

Two different things entirely.

What we did is what the Vietnamese did when they stuck bamboo shoots up the fingernails of Americans.

 

[xsited1]

Yes I have and I love my children. Not more than anything. There are some principles that I would sacrifice my children for, and myself for first if possible.

Do you have children? Yes Do you love them? Yes

Would you do away with jury trials, and courts for that matter, if it might save your child?
No, not for American citizens.

Would you allow people to be nabbed off the street and locked away in secret forever if it might save your child?
No, not for American citizens.

Would you allow random seize and seizure, if it might save your child?
No, not for American citizens.

Would you allow Americans to be tortured, if it might save your child?
That depends on the person. If they are a known terrorist, I probably would. If they were a suspect, I probably wouldn't.

Would you sell out America if it might save your child?
You'll have to be more specific. What do you mean by 'sell out America'?

You ask a lot of questions. See my answers above.

I did. And that is why I asked these question. It should only take you a couple minutes to answer them. You can handle it.

You do realize I answered your questions, right?

 

[Valerie]

CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Clinton mocks Cheney demand « - Blogs from CNN.com



Guess what, Dick Cheney? I don't CARE how effective waterboarding is. We're Americans, we DON'T DO THAT. That is not the way I want my country's secret services to operate. I don't care how effective it is. There are always other ways. If the choice is between having that information, and being a country that uses those kinds of torture tactics, and living without that information and suffering another attack, I would RATHER SUFFER ANOTHER ATTACK than become a country that tortures prisoners.

NO, you would not.

You are a liar.

You may not know it - but you are lying.

Who the fuck do you think you are?

... former State Department lawyer under Condoleeza Rice, Philip Zelikow who says that the Bush administration attempted to destroy all copies of an alternative memo on interrogation techniques he wrote in 2005.

From Philip Zelikow's blog at Foreign Policy magazine The OLC "torture memos": thoughts from a dissenter:

At the time, in 2005, I circulated an opposing view of the legal reasoning. My bureaucratic position, as counselor to the secretary of state, didn't entitle me to offer a legal opinion. But I felt obliged to put an alternative view in front of my colleagues at other agencies, warning them that other lawyers (and judges) might find the OLC views unsustainable. My colleagues were entitled to ignore my views. They did more than that: The White House attempted to collect and destroy all copies of my memo. I expect that one or two are still at least in the State Department's archives.

Stated in a shorthand way, mainly for the benefit of other specialists who work these issues, my main concerns were:

* the case law on the "shocks the conscience" standard for interrogations would proscribe the CIA's methods;

* the OLC memo basically ignored standard 8th Amendment "conditions of confinement" analysis (long incorporated into the 5th amendment as a matter of substantive due process and thus applicable to detentions like these). That case law would regard the conditions of confinement in the CIA facilities as unlawful.

* the use of a balancing test to measure constitutional validity (national security gain vs. harm to individuals) is lawful for some techniques, but other kinds of cruel treatment should be barred categorically under U.S. law -- whatever the alleged gain.

The underlying absurdity of the administration's position can be summarized this way. Once you get to a substantive compliance analysis for "cruel, inhuman, and degrading" you get the position that the substantive standard is the same as it is in analogous U.S. constitutional law. So the OLC must argue, in effect, that the methods and the conditions of confinement in the CIA program could constitutionally be inflicted on American citizens in a county jail.
Philip Zelikow: Bush White House Attempted to Destroy Alternative Memo on Torture | Video Cafe

 

[Sinatra]

Clinton and EVERY other Loon in Congress had an opportunity to LOUDLY protest what the CIA was doing when they were doing it. So why didn't they make a big deal of it then, eh?

And how about the part part of the story that was meaningful:

"Well, it won't surprise you that I don't consider him to be a particularly reliable source of information," Clinton said, to laughter from many in the committee room.

Rohrbacher quickly hit back, saying, "Dick Cheney has asked for specific documents to be unclassified. We are not asking for your opinion of Dick Cheney. … If you want to maintain your credibility with us, what is your opinion on the release of those documents?"

Clinton ultimately did not answer the question, saying, "I believe we ought to get to the bottom of this entire matter. I think it's in the best interest of our country, and that is what the president believes, and that is why he has taken the actions he has."

What kind of person would stand by and watch their loved ones OR fellow American's be slaughtered knowing they could have prevented it? Calling them Loon's would be an insult to the Loon population.

I bet that if Clinton could save her kid by torturing some terrorist, she wouldn't hesitate. For that matter, neither would Obama.

IMHO.

Exactly.

 

[Article 15]

If you lost a loved one to a terrorist attack and found out later that it could have been avoided had the CIA obtained information using waterboarding, you would care.

You're mistaken. Some things matter more than individual lives. Losing one of the most crucial aspects of our Americanness, for instance. WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT.

If terrorism causes us to lose our souls, that will be our greatest loss.

You have no idea what America was - is - or could be.

I think YOU are the one who wants to compromise what America stands for in this particular argument.

 

[WillowTree]

Are you calling me a lefty? HILARIOUS.

well if you aren't then choose. choose for your daughter, you gonna fight to win or does the Taliban get her? which?

They simply do not see terrorism as a threat - they have grown conveniently comfortable in their tirades against Bush, American ,the military, war, etc.

Sadly, another attack will come, and then all of these moral convenience will be stomped into oblivion for a few more years, until the passage of time makes it once again convenient.

I've always said that. if they fought as hard for this country as they did to bring President Bush down I might garner up a little respect for them.. sadly it's not the case.. because they want to be seen as "good" they are willing to sacrifice their children your children and the world's children so the terrorists have already won the battle.. I pity us.

 

[Ravi]

Clinton and EVERY other Loon in Congress had an opportunity to LOUDLY protest what the CIA was doing when they were doing it. So why didn't they make a big deal of it then, eh?

And how about the part part of the story that was meaningful:

"Well, it won't surprise you that I don't consider him to be a particularly reliable source of information," Clinton said, to laughter from many in the committee room.

Rohrbacher quickly hit back, saying, "Dick Cheney has asked for specific documents to be unclassified. We are not asking for your opinion of Dick Cheney. … If you want to maintain your credibility with us, what is your opinion on the release of those documents?"

Clinton ultimately did not answer the question, saying, "I believe we ought to get to the bottom of this entire matter. I think it's in the best interest of our country, and that is what the president believes, and that is why he has taken the actions he has."

What kind of person would stand by and watch their loved ones OR fellow American's be slaughtered knowing they could have prevented it? Calling them Loon's would be an insult to the Loon population.

I bet that if Clinton could save her kid by torturing some terrorist, she wouldn't hesitate. For that matter, neither would Obama.

IMHO.

That's probably true and then they'd probably take whatever sentence they were given. Again, it isn't the same thing as institutionalizing or legalizing torture no matter how you pretend that it is.

 

[Article 15]

NO, you would not.

You are a liar.

You may not know it - but you are lying.

I agree with her. Does that me a liar too? How a liberal? Maybe a communist?

We have prosecuted war criminals in the past for using these same methods. What does that say about us?

If you agree with her sentiment... yes, you too are lying.

If a bit of "torture" on an individual who was helping plan to kill your family could alter that outcome, you would be all for it.

And if someone had the power to obtain that information, and did not out of some obscure sense of being "better than that" you would be screaming against the injustice of the lost lives of your family.

Yes - you are lying because it is morally convenient to do so. That convenience was paid for in blood.

Feel free to enjoy it - but you sure as hell are not going to fool anyone by it.

Yes, you are lying.

YOU are appealing to individual emotion. Try again.