Cheney May Still Get His

sealybobo

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2008
129,949
24,981
2,210
Michigan
The world may finally get to read the Bush administration’s infamous “torture memo,” the Aug. 1, 2002, document that provided legal cover for the brutal and humiliating treatment of detainees in George W. Bush’s “war on terror.”

Though the general contents of that memo have been described in books, congressional reports and news articles, the document itself was kept as a highly classified secret by the Bush administration.

In its first two months in office, the Obama administration has released several other legal memos relating to Bush’s expansive views of his powers, but has withheld key memos on the “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

On Thursday, the Justice Department said it had negotiated an extension to a court deadline in a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by the ACLU seeking interrogation-related documents, in part, by agreeing to add the “torture memo” to other documents that might be released within two weeks.

The Justice Department had been deliberating whether to release three legal memos from May 2005 that, in effect, reaffirmed Bush’s right to authorize the harsh interrogations, after the earlier memos had been withdrawn in 2003 and 2004 by Deputy Attorney General Jack Goldsmith.

But Goldsmith resigned in 2004 under White House pressure and his replacement as head of the powerful Office of Legal Counsel, Steven Bradbury, reasserted Bush’s sweeping powers in May 2005. Bradbury reissued some of the OLC’s opinions from 2002 and 2003 that argued that Bush’s Commander-in-Chief authority permitted him to override laws in the name of national security.

I guess the question is, are we going to buy Bush/Cheney's spin on this, or are they going to be held accountable for breaking the law(s)?

I say we go after them. Even if they do have friends in high places and they will never be found guilty, it is important to know the truth. Just think of how different our arguments will be if the actual truth comes out?

And they say the reason Rumsfeld and Cheney were allowed back into politics is because Nixon was pardoned. So we shouldn't forgive and forget. Otherwise Dana Perino will be running for office in 8 years on her credentials from the Bush regime.

So it is important to know the facts.

Bottom line. Bush & Cheney made themselves above the law. Is that cool with you people or not?

Justice Department May Finally Release Infamous 'Torture Memo'
 
You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you right in the face. I hope this administration goes after them and wastes all the money they can waste. The rest of America will sit and laugh their asses off..
 
It rather difficult to respond to the charge without having read the memo, isn't it?
 
You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you right in the face. I hope this administration goes after them and wastes all the money they can waste. The rest of America will sit and laugh their asses off..

Without knowing any of the facts, you sure are cocky.

Because you think nothing will be done. And that is most likely true.

As long as we know how it was done, I guess I'm ok with that. Because I just really don't want it to ever happen again. I'm not really looking to impeach cheney or send him to jail, even though I would love it.

I just want our conversations to be more honest than they have been up until now.

But you right wingers change positions as much as the direction of the wind changes. You'll just spin it so that "we are pussies for exposing this truth, and we have made our troops weaker, and our nation less safe"

Or you will just stick to the defense that because it was a time of war, Bush had the power to break laws. You could actually be right.

But they broke a lot of laws. Let us see where the truth takes us. There may come a point where Cheney went too far.

You certainly wouldn't know if he was guilty, because I doubt Rush, Hannity or O'Reilly would tell you if he was.

I'd put Cheney in the Muslim part of the prison and let the innocent people he tortured get their revenge.

If only I believed Cheney did it to keep us safe. But that I leave up to gullible right wingers like you.
 
Should we investigate Harry Truman for dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagisaki? He too must have thought himself above the law.
 
Should we investigate Harry Truman for dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagisaki? He too must have thought himself above the law.

Do you have some information that suggests a conspiracy on it?

I do. Why didn't we drop the bomb on the Germans? Was it because they were white and the Japanese are not?

Racism???

PS. We also executed Japanese Generals for waterboarding in WW2. Did you know?
 
I think at the end of the day this discussion doesn't advance the ball at all. The issue is over "enhanced interrogation techniques" and whether those techniques amount to "torture." There is almost no international agreement on what "torture" is per se.

Sure we can all agree that bamboo shoots under the fingernails is torture, but the difficulty comes when the questioned acts amount to less than that. When, in fact, there is no physical damage to the body, is it still torture? That's where the gray area comes in.

In this situation, I think the worst thing I've heard of is waterboarding. We probably all know by now that this is a psychological technique where one is made to think they are drowning. In fact, because of the positioning of the body, it is nearly impossible for the subject to actually drown. As a side note, we routinely do this to our service people going through SEER training. How odd it would be if the only people that could legally be waterboarded is our own military.

But I digress, the legal question, if you are going to try to pin this on Cheney, is whether he could have/should have relied on the legal opinion penned by the Justice Dept.? If not, what weight should be given to the memo? The Vice-President was a layman, not a lawyer, if a lawyer tells him it's legal, what basis does he have to refute it? (If he wanted to). For the lawyer in the Justice department, it's a more difficult question. He would have to say why the enhanced techniques did not rise to the level of torture when used either singly or in combination.

So, it seems to me the person in real jeopardy is the lawyer who said "This isn't torture, so it's okay to do."
 
Don't worry about it. It's only torture.


We're not talking sex with interns here. Now that is worth a 75 million dollar investigation.
 
OLC's opinion should always be the final word? Usually it is, but then there's NOW:

Some in Justice Department See D.C. Vote in House as Unconstitutional

A Split At Justice On D.C. Vote Bill
Holder Overrode Ruling That Measure Is Unconstitutional
By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 1, 2009; A01

Justice Department lawyers concluded in an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the historic D.C. voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional, according to sources briefed on the issue. But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who supports the measure, ordered up a second opinion from other lawyers in his department and determined that the legislation would pass muster.

A finding that the voting rights bill runs afoul of the Constitution could complicate an upcoming House vote and make the measure more vulnerable to a legal challenge that probably would reach the Supreme Court if it is enacted. The bill, which would give the District a vote in the House for the first time, appeared to be on the verge of passing last month before stalling when pro-gun legislators tried to attach an amendment weakening city gun laws. Supporters say it could reach the House floor in May.

In deciding that the measure is unconstitutional, lawyers in the department's Office of Legal Counsel matched a conclusion reached by their Bush administration counterparts nearly two years ago, when a lawyer there testified that a similar bill would not withstand legal attack.

Holder rejected the advice and sought the opinion of the solicitor general's office, where lawyers told him that they could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment....

Holder's decision to get involved may expose President Obama's Justice Department to some of the same concerns raised by Democrats during George W. Bush's presidency.


Democrats claimed then that political considerations infused decisions on subjects including environmental regulations and national security policy. In particular, Bush's OLC drew criticism when lawyers allegedly shaped their analysis on harsh interrogation tactics and warrantless eavesdropping to fit the views of superiors in the White House.

M. Edward Whelan III, who was a deputy at OLC during the Bush administration, said when informed of the matter that Holder's decision to override the office's conclusions amounted to a "blatant abuse" of the office's purpose....
 
Should we investigate Harry Truman for dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagisaki? He too must have thought himself above the law.

Did he lie us into WW2?

Did he let Pearl Harbor happen (by the japs) so he could use it as an excuse to invade Germany?

Did you know that Hitler may have pulled his own 9-11?

Reichstag fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And just like the Burning of the Reichstag, I think this whole 9-11/Iraq/economic meltdown was done on purpose, by design of the GOP, but I'm sure that will never be proven, just like the burning of the Reichstag is still an ongoing topic of debate and research.
 
OLC's opinion should always be the final word? Usually it is, but then there's NOW:

Some in Justice Department See D.C. Vote in House as Unconstitutional

A Split At Justice On D.C. Vote Bill
Holder Overrode Ruling That Measure Is Unconstitutional
By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 1, 2009; A01

Justice Department lawyers concluded in an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the historic D.C. voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional, according to sources briefed on the issue. But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who supports the measure, ordered up a second opinion from other lawyers in his department and determined that the legislation would pass muster.

A finding that the voting rights bill runs afoul of the Constitution could complicate an upcoming House vote and make the measure more vulnerable to a legal challenge that probably would reach the Supreme Court if it is enacted. The bill, which would give the District a vote in the House for the first time, appeared to be on the verge of passing last month before stalling when pro-gun legislators tried to attach an amendment weakening city gun laws. Supporters say it could reach the House floor in May.

In deciding that the measure is unconstitutional, lawyers in the department's Office of Legal Counsel matched a conclusion reached by their Bush administration counterparts nearly two years ago, when a lawyer there testified that a similar bill would not withstand legal attack.

Holder rejected the advice and sought the opinion of the solicitor general's office, where lawyers told him that they could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment....

Holder's decision to get involved may expose President Obama's Justice Department to some of the same concerns raised by Democrats during George W. Bush's presidency.


Democrats claimed then that political considerations infused decisions on subjects including environmental regulations and national security policy. In particular, Bush's OLC drew criticism when lawyers allegedly shaped their analysis on harsh interrogation tactics and warrantless eavesdropping to fit the views of superiors in the White House.

M. Edward Whelan III, who was a deputy at OLC during the Bush administration, said when informed of the matter that Holder's decision to override the office's conclusions amounted to a "blatant abuse" of the office's purpose....

Oh I am perfectly aware that Bush handed Obama a mess.

Lets see if Obama seems to abuse the power like Bush/Cheney did.
 
Should we investigate Harry Truman for dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagisaki? He too must have thought himself above the law.

Did he lie us into WW2?

Did he let Pearl Harbor happen (by the japs) so he could use it as an excuse to invade Germany?

Did you know that Hitler may have pulled his own 9-11?

Reichstag fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And just like the Burning of the Reichstag, I think this whole 9-11/Iraq/economic meltdown was done on purpose, by design of the GOP, but I'm sure that will never be proven, just like the burning of the Reichstag is still an ongoing topic of debate and research.

this may be the most ignorant, ill informed post i've ever seen.

you're a hoot, bozo.
 
Should we investigate Harry Truman for dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagisaki? He too must have thought himself above the law.

Do you have some information that suggests a conspiracy on it?

I do. Why didn't we drop the bomb on the Germans? Was it because they were white and the Japanese are not?

Racism???

PS. We also executed Japanese Generals for waterboarding in WW2. Did you know?

Link?
 
You wouldn't know the truth if it slapped you right in the face. I hope this administration goes after them and wastes all the money they can waste. The rest of America will sit and laugh their asses off..

Without knowing any of the facts, you sure are cocky.

Because you think nothing will be done. And that is most likely true.

As long as we know how it was done, I guess I'm ok with that. Because I just really don't want it to ever happen again. I'm not really looking to impeach cheney or send him to jail, even though I would love it.

I just want our conversations to be more honest than they have been up until now.

But you right wingers change positions as much as the direction of the wind changes. You'll just spin it so that "we are pussies for exposing this truth, and we have made our troops weaker, and our nation less safe"

Or you will just stick to the defense that because it was a time of war, Bush had the power to break laws. You could actually be right.

But they broke a lot of laws. Let us see where the truth takes us. There may come a point where Cheney went too far.

You certainly wouldn't know if he was guilty, because I doubt Rush, Hannity or O'Reilly would tell you if he was.

I'd put Cheney in the Muslim part of the prison and let the innocent people he tortured get their revenge.

If only I believed Cheney did it to keep us safe. But that I leave up to gullible right wingers like you.




I wonder why you leftists always vote against your country? Strange innit?
 
I think at the end of the day this discussion doesn't advance the ball at all. The issue is over "enhanced interrogation techniques" and whether those techniques amount to "torture." There is almost no international agreement on what "torture" is per se.

Sure we can all agree that bamboo shoots under the fingernails is torture, but the difficulty comes when the questioned acts amount to less than that. When, in fact, there is no physical damage to the body, is it still torture? That's where the gray area comes in.

In this situation, I think the worst thing I've heard of is waterboarding. We probably all know by now that this is a psychological technique where one is made to think they are drowning. In fact, because of the positioning of the body, it is nearly impossible for the subject to actually drown. As a side note, we routinely do this to our service people going through SEER training. How odd it would be if the only people that could legally be waterboarded is our own military.

But I digress, the legal question, if you are going to try to pin this on Cheney, is whether he could have/should have relied on the legal opinion penned by the Justice Dept.? If not, what weight should be given to the memo? The Vice-President was a layman, not a lawyer, if a lawyer tells him it's legal, what basis does he have to refute it? (If he wanted to). For the lawyer in the Justice department, it's a more difficult question. He would have to say why the enhanced techniques did not rise to the level of torture when used either singly or in combination.

So, it seems to me the person in real jeopardy is the lawyer who said "This isn't torture, so it's okay to do."

And this reply right here is exactly why we probably shouldn't spend a whole heck of a lot of time or money on this investigation.

We should just release all the facts, make a formal statement, and then move on.

But then that doesn't mean Cheney can't be tried in public courts or on the world stage.

I hear people are going to sue Cheney/Bush. God I hope so. If they get off like OJ got off, then they can take them to court like the Goldman's took OJ for $ and then we can get all that Haloburton money from Cheney.
 
Should we investigate Harry Truman for dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagisaki? He too must have thought himself above the law.

Did he lie us into WW2?

Did he let Pearl Harbor happen (by the japs) so he could use it as an excuse to invade Germany?

Did you know that Hitler may have pulled his own 9-11?

Reichstag fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And just like the Burning of the Reichstag, I think this whole 9-11/Iraq/economic meltdown was done on purpose, by design of the GOP, but I'm sure that will never be proven, just like the burning of the Reichstag is still an ongoing topic of debate and research.



Bitter bitter little man! Damn your country if you can!
 
Should we investigate Harry Truman for dropping the A-bomb on Hiroshima and Nagisaki? He too must have thought himself above the law.

Do you have some information that suggests a conspiracy on it?

I do. Why didn't we drop the bomb on the Germans? Was it because they were white and the Japanese are not?

Racism???

PS. We also executed Japanese Generals for waterboarding in WW2. Did you know?

Link?

JapanFocus
 
Did he lie us into WW2?

Did he let Pearl Harbor happen (by the japs) so he could use it as an excuse to invade Germany?

Did you know that Hitler may have pulled his own 9-11?

Reichstag fire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And just like the Burning of the Reichstag, I think this whole 9-11/Iraq/economic meltdown was done on purpose, by design of the GOP, but I'm sure that will never be proven, just like the burning of the Reichstag is still an ongoing topic of debate and research.
Kind of amusing that someone is trying to speak to history when he doesn't know Harry truman was not POTUS when the USA entered WWII. :lol:
 
OLC's opinion should always be the final word? Usually it is, but then there's NOW:

Some in Justice Department See D.C. Vote in House as Unconstitutional

A Split At Justice On D.C. Vote Bill
Holder Overrode Ruling That Measure Is Unconstitutional
By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 1, 2009; A01

Justice Department lawyers concluded in an unpublished opinion earlier this year that the historic D.C. voting rights bill pending in Congress is unconstitutional, according to sources briefed on the issue. But Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., who supports the measure, ordered up a second opinion from other lawyers in his department and determined that the legislation would pass muster.

A finding that the voting rights bill runs afoul of the Constitution could complicate an upcoming House vote and make the measure more vulnerable to a legal challenge that probably would reach the Supreme Court if it is enacted. The bill, which would give the District a vote in the House for the first time, appeared to be on the verge of passing last month before stalling when pro-gun legislators tried to attach an amendment weakening city gun laws. Supporters say it could reach the House floor in May.

In deciding that the measure is unconstitutional, lawyers in the department's Office of Legal Counsel matched a conclusion reached by their Bush administration counterparts nearly two years ago, when a lawyer there testified that a similar bill would not withstand legal attack.

Holder rejected the advice and sought the opinion of the solicitor general's office, where lawyers told him that they could defend the legislation if it were challenged after its enactment....

Holder's decision to get involved may expose President Obama's Justice Department to some of the same concerns raised by Democrats during George W. Bush's presidency.


Democrats claimed then that political considerations infused decisions on subjects including environmental regulations and national security policy. In particular, Bush's OLC drew criticism when lawyers allegedly shaped their analysis on harsh interrogation tactics and warrantless eavesdropping to fit the views of superiors in the White House.

M. Edward Whelan III, who was a deputy at OLC during the Bush administration, said when informed of the matter that Holder's decision to override the office's conclusions amounted to a "blatant abuse" of the office's purpose....

Oh I am perfectly aware that Bush handed Obama a mess.

Lets see if Obama seems to abuse the power like Bush/Cheney did.




Don't you incomptent slobs ever get tired of playing the victim?.. Bitter bitter little man,, you know obama fought as hard as he could to get Bush's leftovers! :lol:
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top