Dick Cheney And The Rule Of Law
Fox News Sunday's Chris Wallace was able to get an important, and clarifying, admission from Vice President Dick Cheney in an interview that was broadcast today. Wallace mentions a list of techniques that CIA agents are accused of using in violation of the legal guidance that the Bush Administration established. These include threatening a naked detainee with a power drill and a gun, and staging mock executions. Then Wallace asks Cheney this question:
WALLACE: So even these cases where they went beyond the specific legal authorization, you're OK with it.
CHENEY: I am.
There is not much nuance there. Cheney is saying he does not object to the rogue behavior of CIA agents who went beyond their legal mandate. (In the same interview, Cheney says that the Bush Justice Department found there was nothing "improper or illegal" in this behavior, a determination that is now under review by the Obama Justice Department.) Speaking of the interrogation program as a whole, Cheney says, "It was good policy. It was properly carried out. It worked very, very well."
Power drills and mock executions are not the only extralegal techniques that CIA employees are alleged to have committed. One CIA contractor, according to the CIA Inspector General, is alleged to have beaten an Afghan detainee to death with a large metal flashlight and his foot. Released criminal records show that another CIA employee was interrogating a detainee at Abu Ghraib prison in a stress position with a bag over his head, when the detainee died of asphyxiation. Assuming that Cheney did not misspeak, his statement to Wallace suggests that he believes these deaths are "OK' given the circumstances.
There are the beginnings here of a possible pattern in Cheney's thoughts--the suggestion that violations of law in the service of a greater national good are forgivable. As TIME's Massimo Calabresi and Michael Weisskopf wrote in a cover story last month, the disagreement between President George Bush and Cheney over the pardoning of Cheney aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby similarly focused on this question of whether the rule of law should be sacrosanct. Bush saw his administration as a sort of repudiation of failings of the Bill Clinton, who was charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for his statements to prosecutors about Monica Lewinsky. Calabresi and Weisskopf describe Bush's final debate over the Libby pardon as this discussion with his personal attorney Jim Sharp.
While packing boxes in the upstairs residence, according to his associates, Bush noted that he was again under pressure from Cheney to pardon Libby. He characterized Cheney as a friend and a good Vice President but said his pardon request had little internal support. If the presidential staff were polled, the result would be 100 to 1 against a pardon, Bush joked. Then he turned to Sharp. "What's the bottom line here? Did this guy lie or not?"
The lawyer, who had followed the case very closely, replied affirmatively.
Bush indicated that he had already come to that conclusion too.
"O.K., that's it," Bush said.
The Cheney argument for Libby's pardon focused on much more than whether or not Libby was innocent of the crime in question. As Calabresi and Weisskopf recount, the Cheney argument went like this:
The Vice President argued the case in that Oval Office session, which was attended by the President and his top aides. He made his points in a calm, lawyerly style, saying Libby was a fall guy for critics of the Iraq war, a loyal team player caught up in a political dispute that never should have turned into a legal matter. They went after Scooter, Cheney would say, because they couldn't get his boss. But Bush pushed past the political dimension. "Did the jury get it right or wrong?" he asked.
Cheney replied that the conviction for obstruction of justice was based on what amounted to a case of "he said, he said," a disagreement between his longtime aide and a journalist. Libby had told the grand jury he remembered first hearing Plame's name from NBC's Tim Russert. But notes obtained by prosecutors indicated that Cheney had been the first to identify her to Libby. And Russert denied at Libby's trial that he had mentioned Plame to the defendant. The jury sided with Russert. Cheney, however, considered it an open question. "Who do you believe, Scooter or Russert?" he asked Bush.
And Cheney went further. Even if Russert was right, Libby may have honestly forgotten what was said during a single conversation in a typically busy day. Memories are fallible. Only an overzealous prosecutor and a liberal Washington jury would criminalize a bad one, he argued.
In the end, the Bush decision not to pardon Libby came down to Bush's conviction that the rule of law must be respected. It would be interesting to know if the former President now agrees with Cheney's contention that it was "OK" for CIA interrogators to go beyond what the law allowed.
[UPDATE: See my addendum to this post here.]
One other note: Last week, I wrote a long blog post giving a close reading of a statement Cheney issued after the CIA Inspector General report was released. I found it significant that in that statement Cheney did not claim, as he has before and since, that the enhanced interrogation techniques led to intelligence that saved lives. The next day, I updated the post with a statement from a Cheney spokesperson saying that my interpretation was incorrect. Cheney does still believe that the released documents show that the enhanced techniques saved lives. As Cheney tells Wallace in the same Fox interview:
My sort of overwhelming view is that the enhanced interrogation techniques were absolutely essential in saving thousands of American lives, in preventing further attacks against the United States, in giving us the intelligence we needed to go find Al Qaida, to find their camps, to find out how they were being financed.
Two documents that Cheney asked to be released last week described in some detail the intelligence that was gained from detainees who were subjected to harsh interrogations, but were silent, at least as redacted, on the role of harsh techniques in producing that information. The CIA Inspector General report concluded that judging the effectiveness of the harsh techniques was a "subjective" task. Another July 20, 2007 memo released last week, from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, asserts that the techniques were effective:
For example, we understand that enhanced interrogation techniques proved particularly crucial in the interrogations of Khalid Shaykh Muhhamad and Abu Zubaydah. Before the CIA used enhanced interrogations techniques in interrogating Muhammad, he resisted giving any information about future attacks, simply warning, "soon, you will know." As the President informed the Nation in his September 6th address, once enhanced techniques were employed, Muhammad provided information revealing the "Second Wave," a plot to crash a hijacked airliner into the Library Tower in Los Angeles--the tallest building on the West Coast. Information obtained from Muhammad led to the capture of many of the al Qaeda operatives planning the attack. Interrogations of Zubaydah--again, once enhanced techniques were employed--revealed two al Qaeda operatives already in the United States and planning to destroy a high-rise apartment building and to detonate a radiological bomb in Washington D.C. The techniques have revealed plots to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge and to release mass biological agents in our Nation's largest cities.
The 2004 CIA Inspector General report notes that there are several reasons that it is difficult to determine the effectiveness of an enhanced technique (EIT).
(1) the Agency cannot determine with any certainty the totality of the intelligence the detainee actually possesses; (2) each detainee has different fears of and tolerance for EITs; (3) the application of the same EITs by different interrogators may have different results; and
The last reason that the effectiveness has been hard to determine is redacted from the released version of the report.
-
1
So, M.S., how do you feel about this?
.
Some people, and I count myself one of them, feel that the only reason we had Bush and Cheney screwing up the country these past 8 years is because the hired employees of our corporate media organizations made it so.
.
And this is also how those same war criminals lied us into Iraq.
.
Any comments?
~-
1.1
I could not agree more, well said.
-
-
2
On the one hand, most of the civilized world thinks we engaged in barbarism. On the other hand, Liz Cheney totally agrees with her dad.
.
I am so confused. There are equal sides here. How is one to sort this all out?-
2.1
Confused??? Are you joking??? ILest me see if I've got this right--You are surprised that Liz Cheney corroborates her father's LIES??? Lady, you are surely under the influence of some intoxicating substance!
-
2.2
"Confused??? Are you joking???"
.
Pretty clearly, yes.
-
-
3
Michael -- the word is TORTURE. And only the lowest scum are willing to hide the fact that the united states engaged in TORTURE by using phrases like "enhanced interrogation techniques".
-
4
Cheney certainly knows who the best person is, for him, to go for an interview.
.
Basically, from the interview, all I can conclude is, he doesn't believe in the rule of law, or the constitution, and he is still willing to state arguments, for which he has no empirical evidence. In other words, he hasn't changed much from when he was in power. He even continues to harp on how no further terrorist attacks have taken place since 9/11, hoping to draw our attention away from the fact that it was on his watch that 9/11 did occur. If I was a failure and a war criminal like him I think I would be inclined to take a lower profile. -
5
Brings to remembrance the "so (what)?" remark he made.
.
The only thing I can commend about Cheney is that he is certainly not a modern day politician. He believes what he believes, and will tell you and anyone else straight up where he stands. No flip-flop, no spin, no baby-kissing, no campaigning for his next gig.
.
Now of course those tendencies are actually more a result of his rigid inflexibility, absolutist mentality, and a general lack of care for any opinion outside of his own. So make no mistake, I'm pretty sure he's the exact opposite of the kind of person you want making decisions in a diverse democracy for hundreds of millions. Yet, he'd be great if he was on your side in say a bar fight.
.
Kinda like a big bruiser jerk (or pit bull) that you only bring around for a fight where you don't care how many casualties there are, long as you're not one. Afterward, "back in the cage, Dick!"
.
What his handlers failed to remember before they let him loose is that as the "good guys" (**eyes roll**) we are supposed to care about casualties, collateral damage, human rights and all that "wimpy stuff".-
5.1
Yet, he'd be great if he was on your side in say a bar fight.
.
I'm fairly certain Mr. Secure Undisclosed Location would have other priorities (once again) if and when it came time for him to put his own skin on the line.
~ -
5.2
dee
Shorter post but not any more sense.
1) Yes I am sure you prefer to have Obama using a civilian force against people who disagree as he has stated several times he wants.
2) or control the internet and have citizens report other citizens to the WH who disagree
3) And you accuse everyone else of lying. She was not a covert only an opportunist with her arrogan tpin-headed husband.
4) Or maybe he took Obama at his word that he had no interest in pursuing this only looking forward. Or don't you count that as a lie from you President. An now the coward of a president is hiding behind his AG. Not unlike Clinton did at Waco. Only Reno is a better man than Holder.
Time to get out of mom's basement and breath fresh air and see the real world
-
5.3
Well, freetopissonyourself, someone has to watch for domestic terrorism!
.
I mean, we already lost 163 people to the likes of you, and if 911 hadn't happened, the Oklahoma City bombing would still stand as the most deadly act of terrorism outside of Rosewood... -
5.4
IQ53
As always you stupiduty is only matched by your lack of grasp of reality.
-
5.5
I'll just leave this little tidbit for freetopee:
.
So far, the only thing you've offered is rhetoric.
.
I have United States History on my side. Not to mention not a few Godzillion links, many of which are documentary, not partisan.
.
I guess I might hate America, according to you, but I know one hell hole of a lot more US history than you ozone breathers.
.
You might try to learn some of it, freelypeeingintothewind...
-
-
6
Michael Scherer:
.
You note that the Bush Administration's DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel produced a memo in which it was assertedwe understand that enhanced interrogation techniques proved particularly crucial in the interrogations of Khalid Shaykh Muhhamad and Abu Zubaydah
Three questions:
.
1) Is this memo a product of the same people that produced memos first authorizing these torture techniques starting in August of 2002?
.
2) How do the authors of this 2007 memo know with empirical certainty that torture was directly responsible for the foiling of numerous plots? When the authors state "we understand", do they mean "we know" or do they mean "we are led to believe"?
.
3) If the memo conveys the latter meaning, does that mean that the authors' understanding of events could have been obtained through contact with the subordinates of Dick Cheney?
.
Might you answer these questions in your treatment of this story, Michael Scherer, so that we may avoid the pointless merry-go-round of assertions based on memos that were the result of assertions based on memos, and the public can get to an understanding of the empirical facts of what happened, as opposed to who officially said what about what happened?-
6.1
Stuart,
1)Same office. Different author. The 2007 memo was written by Steven Bradbury. The 2002 memo was by Jay Bybee.
2) Unclear. The memo is written in passive voice. At other points in the memo, when the source is the CIA, Bradbury writes in the second person, "You have informed us. . . " since the memo was addressed to the CIA. Notably, the CIA IG came to a different conclusion in its analysis of the same events, as I point out.
3)Don't know.
Notably, other facts in the Bradbury memo have been called into question. see here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1919523,00.html
I don't think there will ever be any conclusive proof either way about the effectiveness of the techniques. As the CIA IG explains, it is a subjective determination, since some things cannot be know.
-
6.2
Michael Scherer:
.
Thank you so much for responding to commentary with these clarifications; it's extremely helpful. -
6.3
"I don't think there will ever be any conclusive proof either way about the effectiveness of the techniques. "
.
Since Cheney is the one who has put forth the thesis that torture led directly to the prevention of certain terrorist attacks, the burden of proof is on him. If he cannot provide the empirical evidence, there is no requirement to reserve judgment, or give him the benefit of doubt. The proper conclusion is his original thesis is wrong. -
6.4
"I don't think there will ever be any conclusive proof either way about the effectiveness of the techniques. "
.
Well at least we can be absolutely certain of one thing--that torture by any name, including enhanced interrogation, is absolutely illegal! Which is probably why you can't find a great deal of material corroborating Cheney's claims.
.
Too bad Cheney, the absolutists, chose to ignore that little fact, but you are right about one thing Mikey, Cheney does have a pattern for not caring about the law. But this is not a new thing, he started trashing the constitution on 9/12. While it's obviously he doesn't care about torture, let's not forget how often he's given the bird to our constitutional protections. So I guess that means he lied under oath, that's perjury right, when you put your hand on a bible in the presence of a supreme court judge and swear to defend the constitution?
.
Let us count the ways:
1) tried to convince Bush to put troops on the streets as law enforcement
2) eave dropping on Americans, including collected information on members of the media
3) Colluded with underlings to release the name of a covert operative out of vindictiveness
4) Now he's railing about how Obama doesn't stop Holder from pursuing this, clearly his disdain for the law is such that he doesn't expect anyone else to follow it either.
etc...
-
-
7
MS wrote: 'There are the beginnings here of a possible pattern in Cheney's thoughts--the suggestion that violations of law in the service of a greater national good are forgivable.'
Would Cheney support me if I had good intentions when I broke the law? Suppose I opened a medical marijuana dispensary because I believed that that would serve the 'greater good' for my community. Does anyone think Cheney would come to my defense when I was arrested?
It's pretty clear that Cheney and his ilk believe the law only applies to the 'little people' -- not nobility like himself and those that he agrees with politically.
Could a journalist please ask those that oppose punishing crimes committed by the previous administration this simple question: If you don't think that there should be punishment for breaking the law -- shouldn't you just change the law to make the behavior legal? If you think that no one should be punished for violating the statutes against torture, shouldn't the statutes be changed?
I think the answer to my question is obvious. If I break the law they would want me punished. But when they do it it's automatically OK -- because they're not peasants like the rest of us. They're above the law.
-
7.1
This whole mishegas is turning into a Leona Helmsley moment over and over again, except the implications are much bigger than the issues of who should pay taxes. Cheney basically played God with other peoples' lives and feels absolutely jusified in doing so simply for the protection of HIS own life. This has nothing to do for what was best for the American people, just what was the best for him and his cronies. Anyone who believes otherwise is a deluded fool.
.
(awaits Spob frothing in 5...4...3...) -
7.2
Would Cheney support me if I had good intentions when I broke the law?
Check with Obama and the tax cheats (What Geithner did was fraud) his adminstration, or maybe the ones in Congress like Rangel or the felons he named as Czars. My guess is that you have a different take on that.
-
7.3
freeinpa wrote: 'My guess is that you have a different take on that.'.
.
You'd be wrong. The law should apply to everyone. I don't ignore misbehavior in ANY administration. Do you? -
7.4
Your argument would be more persuasive if you showed actual concern over the lawbreakers still in office while you only seek to admonish one no longer in power.
The silence from the left is deafening and hypocritical.
-
-
8
Not a shocking revelation coming from one of the authors of The American Century. Along with Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, Cheney, as early as the 1980s, was arguing for a massive military buildup to respond to a coming crisis on US soil. This catastrophic event would launch the US into vigorous global military operation which would ultimately lead to a hundred years of US led stability, the Pax Americana, the American Century. Any prior knowledge of an impending attack would likely be ignored by Cheney and Co., leading directly to the attacks on 9/11. The blissful ignorance of President Bush would have allowed such to easily be carried out right under his nose. Poor Bush, the slow son of a b*tch. The more I hear about the inner workings of his administration, the more I come to the conclusion that his cluelessness with regard to his underlings might be the only thing that saves his legacy. I'm skeptical as to the extent Bush actually played a role in the endless allegations against his administration.
-
8.1
Just wanted to supply the still extant link for those who are interested:
.
http://www.newamericancentury.org
-
-
9
Here go the bleeding heart liberals again. Did the 9/11 victims of terrorist murderers have due process before they were murdered.
Cheney is right, absolutely right saying that this is being politicized. We have not had an attack on our shores since 9/11 because those who know best how to prevent it were not hobbled by politicians who want to make sure the terrorists are treated right. Next will be the requirement to read the Miranda rights to the murders.
Blood will be on the hands of those who interfere with those who need to do what needs to be done to prevent further attacks.
-
9.1
We have not had an attack on our shores since 9/11 because those who know best how to prevent it were not hobbled by politicians who want to make sure the terrorists are treated right.
.
Two glaring problems with this statement. First, how can you be sure that any attacks were averted? Could you point out any specific plots that were foiled by way of torture? Secondly, the overwhelming majority of those at Guantanamo are not terrorists. They were picked up on the fields of Iraq and Afghanistan fighting our troops. Most are merely insurgent guerrillas. Militancy against an occupying army hardly warrants torture. They should be detained and ultimately releases. By treating them the way we have, they are likely to become exactly that which we are attempting to combat: radicalized extremists willing to target any and all Americans as retaliation for the egregious actions of our government. -
9.2
Blood will be on the hands of those who interfere with those who need to do what needs to be done to prevent further attacks.
.
"All right. You've covered your ass, now."
~ -
9.3
Yes and we will have to wait until the terroists commit a traffic violation so we can arrest them. Hopefully before they blow something else up.
-
9.4
"Blood will be on the hands of those who interfere with those who need to do what needs to be done to prevent further attacks."
.
Yes they will. Indeed!
.
You have hit it right on the nail head, only problem is, you are thinking of the wrong nail.
.
You should be thinking of the Oklahoma City bombing, not to mention at least four lower level terrorist attacks since the last threat assessment.
.
And, of course, I'm not talking about Al-Queda... -
9.5
Freepie
~
That's rather obtuse, wouldn't you say? Are you honestly equating an opposition to torture with a viewpoint that preemptive intelligence should not be allowed to disrupt plots? Certainly it is possible to foil plans to attacks US citizens without torture, yes? -
9.6
"Yes and we will have to wait until the terroists commit a traffic violation so we can arrest them. Hopefully before they blow something else up."
.
No, not so, freetopeeupyournose, they can not only get a traffic ticket, they have to show up at an Obama rally with a gun, and even then, they have to wait until that terrorist actually lifts the weapon before anything can be done!
.
Shhhhhh! Of course, anyone can read about the individual that first began that particular bit of insanity in any number of recent news articles.
.
Of course, with Steven Anderson, our own effigy of a radical imam, maybe we'll have more to worry about soon than just traffic tickets!
.
Tick tock tick tock tick tock tick tock... -
9.7
I love how IQ 53 is more concerned about a couple of guys that committed one act of random terror versus a group of folks that have threatened to destroy this country. And you all think the folks on the right are nuts?
-
-
10
The "good" part about Cheney's insistance on the benefit and legitimacy of torture is that he is heading towards talking himself into a well-deserved jail cell that even Obama may not be able to pardon him from.
The Reich-nut Zombies who praise Cheney and vilify Obama fail to realize that it is THEIR gullibility that has made our economy and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan come close to disaster. Not only is all of their fervor over "socialism" a mask instead of their using the "N-word" I am sure that not of the Zombies who express fear over losing their liberties belong to, or have ever donated to the ACLU.
The Zombie gullibiltiy is only matched by their stupidity.
(I have also quit the Republican party in disgust after 40 years of registration and support.)
-
10.1
jymallyn -- they are not afraid of losing their liberties, they're afraid of losing control. It's your liberties that concern them. They resent that you have them.
-
10.2
Dee
no runs no hits only errors
We have a front row seat to our entire base of liberties destroyed by the current adminstration as he continues to destroy our economy.
-
10.3
Which economy are you talking about, freetopissonit?
.
Must not be the same the rest of us Americans are participating in, that much is made evident by any number of indicators recently. Even FDR took longer than 200 days, so you are breathing ozone here.
.
As far as freedoms being taken away, I'm wondering which ones? Did someone gerrymander your district? Did they take your right to vote away? I know, from your ignorant rants they certainly haven't touched your first Amendment rights, and the second seems intact as well.
.
Just what rights are being taken away?
.
Before you answer, keep in mind my point in response to your comment about health care when I pointed out that the founding fathers included the words life, liberty and happiness in a certain obscure phrase in some obscure paper or other. You know, the preamble of something or other.
.
jeopardy.wav
jeopardy.wav
jeopardy.wav -
10.4
freeinpa -- I could insult you but I won't, I understand the fear that drives you. Now you can spend all of your time and energy trying to get others to join in your campaign of fear and anger against our President but know that those who support and believe in him can out organize you. You can spend all of your time railing against Democrats and liberal views and know those that feel that way out number you. You can spend every minute until you breath your last wishing for days of old but know that those who look forward to the future will out live you.
.
In a very short time minorities in this country will come together and for the first time represent a majority. And I get that Obama's presidency represents that which you fear the most -- when those you've spent a lifetime mistreating would be in control. We've seen this before when whites in South Africa fled in fear that the blacks they abused for generations would you use their new found power to return the favor. Like them, you will find that your was for naught. We won't seek revenge because we are not vengeful. We won't treat you as badly because we believe in the golden rule and we won't destroy your country because it is also ours and we love it just as dearly.
.
You can continue to cower at the prospect of change but know together with our white brothers and sisters who know we can be better we will out do you. -
10.5
IQ 53
I am sure that selling pencils in the park as you do is probably in a slump. We hear everyday from the admiinstration that everthing is better and we have turned the corner and he only spend $1.2 trillion to do it. And we can cut health care costs by spending a trillion more. That is reasonoing you can understand
-
-
11
Well geeze, Michael, some of us figured out Cheney's commitment to the rule of law awhile back - something about war crimes and otherwise running a criminal enterprise from the White House. Of course when you publish morality-free pap like this, you call your own ethics into question:
The CIA Inspector General report concluded that judging the effectiveness of the harsh techniques was a "subjective" task. Another July 20, 2007 memo released last week, from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, asserts that the techniques were effective:
How could that possibly matter at all to anyone with a brain or a soul?
-
11.1
It matters, shep. In reporting on a highly controversial government program it might be pertinent to actually include what the government's position is. Don't you think? You seem to suggest that it is unethical for MS to include the positions of the Justice Department and CIA in that you, personally, see no way to justify the program and as such MS should not provide their point of view. I'm not advocating torture, but it is necessary to include government testimony on the matter if you are a journalist. It is actually most likely required of MS by TIME magazine.
.
Case in point, an article I recently wrote on the potential for renewed peace negotiations with regard to the Israel-Palestinian conflict included, naturally, a summary of the inadmissibility of Israeli settlements as per the 4th Geneva Convention and the 1999 UN special session in Switzerland. I was required by the journal to include the Israeli justification for continued settlements, that being that the West Bank was occupied in a defensive war against Jordan which had previously occupied the territory. Israel argues that it therefore does not conform to the standard definition of an Occupying Power. I would have likely omitted this Israeli rebuttal in that it is irrelevant to the international consensus, yet it was mandated that I include it in the name of impartiality. MS may be under similar restrictions. -
11.2
"In reporting on a highly controversial government program it might be pertinent to actually include what the government's position is. Don't you think?"
.
Quite obviously, I couldn't give a rat's ass what the "government's position" is, unless it's a return to the complete repudiation of torture as conduct befitting civilized human beings. It is immoral, illegal and ineffective, the latter being completely irrelevant to the former. The fact that the entire enterprise and conversation leads some people to become addled to those realities and sets their moral compasses spinning, is a very good reason why any other position should be shouted down and dismissed out of hand. -
11.3
I understand your sentiments, Shep. And noble sentiments they are. You and I are both of the opinion that torture is morally reprehensible and as such unjustifiable on grounds of practicality or effectiveness. However, there is a divergence on the importance of explaining both view points. What happens, for example, when a journalist finds an action to be unconscionable that is far less clear than torture? Is it not desirable for journalists to present both explanations, even if ridiculing the less defensible, so that the audience (those who really matter) can draw their own conclusions? It may be important to at times at least present the posed defense of that which you may find reprehensible. This is not to say that a journalist should not frame the debate in terms of which side is likely in the right, however to ignore an entire side of a disagreement is to deprive the public of necessary information. It is, I must say, certainly possible to present indefensible justifications with an entirely condescending and mocking attitude. But it might be worth presenting, nonetheless.
-
-
12
Dick Cheney before he dicks you.
-
13
From an unnamed "liberal legal scold"
"The debate over whether torture extracted valuable information is, in my view, a total sideshow, both because (a) it inherently begs the question of whether legal interrogation means would have extracted the same information as efficiently if not more so (exactly the same way that claims that warrantless eavesdropping uncovered valuable intelligence begs the question of whether legal eavesdropping would have done so); and (b) torture is a felony and a war crime, and we don't actually have a country (at least we're not suppoesd to) where political leaders are free to commit serious crimes and then claim afterwards that it produced good outcomes. If we want to be a country that uses torture, then we should repeal our laws which criminalize it, withdraw from treaties which ban it, and announce to the world (not that they don't already know) that, as a country, we believe torture is justifiable and just. Let's at least be honest about what we are. Let's explicitly repudiate Ronald Reagan's affirmation that "[n]o exceptional circumstances whatsoever . . . may be invoked as a justification of torture" and that "[e]ach State Party is required [] to prosecute torturers."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/29/post/index.html
I also highly recommend his transcript of Moyers' appearance on Maher.
-
14
I am so tired of hearing "we haven't had another attack since 9/11" . We have also not been struck by an asteroid, California hasn't fallen into the ocean, and none of our major cities have drowned. ( ..oh wait... ) The point is, the Bushies cannot justify their programs by a lack of evidence. It is also significant that there had not been a major foreign terrorist attack in this country prior to 9/11 either. (the first WTC attack was relatively small potatoes.) We still are not policing our domestic terrorists, even allowing them to carry automatic rifles to see the president. Absurd. The NRA is holding the country hostage to their interpretation of the second amendment. Just what "well regulated militia" were the gun toters at the town meetings members of?
-
14.1
Brilliant analogies!
IN YOUR COUNTRY? Fortunately fo rthe rest of us we are not left with thelikes of you to defend it.
Let me know where the Constitutional genius Obama finds abortion in the constitution and why partial birth abortions aren't torture. At least the terrorists reneged on their membership in the human race, what has an unborn done?
-
14.2
Which terrorists, freetopeeinyourownrface?
.
You wouldn't be speaking of domestic terrorism, like any number of your ilk are dog whistling, and sometimes, even outright advocating, would you?
.
C'mon, bark, fido! Roll over!
.
Fetch the stick! Here! Stick, stupid!
.
No wonder you're extinct... -
14.3
IQ 53
You make the birthers, crop field enthusiats and alien watchers look like Ozzie & HArriet with your senseless diatribes.
Tell Mom to re-fill the prescription fast before you hurt yourself.
-
-
15
You know what I really find interesting, is that a couple of months ago when Obama first said that he didn't want to focus on the past, that he preferred to look forward instead of backwards,the media was all up in arms. Now I realize that much of that was due to you people wanting to instigate an argument for your won entertainment, the fact remains that your principal meme at the time was based on the idea that as a constitutional lawyer Obama should know better.
.
So tell me why is it when you deal with Obama every statement goes through this incredible scrutiny and Cheney gets little to none? If the president is considered to be acting outside of his authority when he intervenes to tell Holder he'd prefer to look forward and not investigate, then why aren't you people pushing back on Cheney when he suggests that Obama should have intervened to stop any investigation?
.
Moreover, why does the media insist on listening to these people -- Cheney and his daughter are incredibly self-serving, hypocrites and liars. Every time they show up on the circuit they offer one whopper after another. they are bullies, did you see that performance with Stephanopoulos this morning? she was like one of those town hall nut bags, who wouldn't let anyone else speak. Well she can shout as loud as she like, her daddy is still a crook of the highest order, because in my country torture is illegal.. What do you have to do to be so discredited that the media no longer prints your self serving lies. At long last have you people no standards? -
16
Michael,
I tip my hat to you for your blog postings on this subject. Ever since more details have been released about the interrogation techniques I have been in a state of shock, disbelief, and anger. What Cheney has basically revealed, and what many of his critics have long suspected, is that he believes american values such as the rule of law, are mere inconveniences if they get in the way of what he feels is a broader, noble, agenda. I mean, is there any other way to interpret his statement?
And the thing that KILLS me, and makes me want to vomit, is this clown has the audacity to parade around on talk shows and whine about what does and doesn't offend him. He was VP for eight years...if he really felt that the CIA should have had free reign to "take the gloves off" (his words) against terrorist suspects, then why didn't he go to Congress and ask for that authority? Why didn't he ask for a repeal on the restraints in this kind of behavior? Why didn't he go before the American people and make that case? He had every opportunity to do so, but he didn't. Instead, he hid behind BS legal justifications that the administration's lawyers cooked up. And now he has the nerve to try to tell the Obama administration what they should and shouldn't be doing. He is pathetic. When he was accountable to the American people he was more than happy to hide behind the protections of his office, while this behavior was going on. Now that he is a private citizen, he pretends to be this noble advocate for the country's national security interests? Give me a break. People died for God's sake. They are dead. He doesn't even have any shame.
I just don't know what else there is to say.
This whole thing is a joke. What has this country become?
-
16.1
"And the thing that KILLS me, and makes me want to vomit, is this clown has the audacity to parade around on talk shows and whine about what does and doesn't offend him."
.
And you just can't connect the dots to the people who give him the air time and column space to spout his paranoid lies and immoral treason? They should be telling us what Dick Cheney is and what that means, not mentally masterbate over whether what he did was "effective" or not? What has this country become indeed? -
16.2
Sheperdwong is exactly right. Not only is Dick Cheney a massive failure, he is a pathological liar and a psychopath.
.
So why is he on our TVs? (Other than on trial for war crimes, that is.)
~
-
-
17
Repeating what I've said elsewhere.
.
Any time we focus on whether the torture techniques were effective in getting information, we've lost track of the point. If there weren't a widespread belief that torture could yield such information it wouldn't have been necessary to pass a statute outlawing in. But we DID pass a statute and Ronald Reagan signed it into law.
.
Mr Cheney's contempt for the country he allegedly served and the Constitution he swore to but failed to uphold, should certainly preclude him from polluting the airwaves with any further opinions concerning his own culpability or lack thereof. Of course he's free to speak but journalists such as MS, instead of joining in the speculation over whether torture accomplished anything useful, should instead be reciting letter and verse what the law reads, and pointing out precisely how convoluted the thinking is necessary to believe that violations of it shouldn't matter.-
17.1
If you ask me Paul, the fact that he put his hand on a bible and swore to a judge that he would uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States -- makes this latest revelation an admission of guilt to the crime of perjury. Isn't that what pissed him off about Clinton?
-
17.2
I suggest you and Dee take a hard look at the contingent of folks in this adminstration and Congress and the duties they have sworn to uphold and how many laws are broken and ignored.
And Dee every liberal excused Clinton. It was only about sex. Seems you are fairly selective at what laws you want to enforce.
-
-
18
Cheney is under the influence of his own ego. He will face the music soon and he knows it. There is a related post at http://iamsoannoyed.com/?page_id=588
-
19
IIRC, MS linked to this last week. Everyone should read it in any event.
.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090914/hayes/single -
20
No big surprise here. As expected, Cheney supports torture. The issue is not his oft repeated position but what will be done regarding such conduct.
“One CIA contractor, according to the CIA Inspector General, is alleged to have beaten an Afghan detainee to death with a large metal flashlight and his foot.” If this is infact true, then what happens? Will the contractor be tried for murder? What about those in power who in effect sanctioned such conduct?
It appears from Cheney's comments and support for “enhanced interrogation techniques” that the administration appeared to give blanket cover to almost any form of conduct so long as it was meant to obtain “needed” information.
What now? Will the AG prosecute? And if so how will he do so. The CIA officials can claim they were obeying orders—a valid defense.
-
21
[...] Swampland post says it all in that Dick Cheney was unequivocally at peace with CIA agents going rogue and torturing suspected terrorist.... It is hard to be shocked any more by the things that Dick Cheney says and perhaps even more [...]
-
22
[...] in the assist of a greater domestic beatific are forgivable. Here is the example post: Dick Cheney on Fox News Sun And the CIA - Swampland - TIME.com Posted in Law, Uncategorized | Tags: a-greater-national, a-possible-pattern, beginnings, [...]
-
23
For example, we understand that enhanced interrogation techniques proved particularly crucial in the interrogations of Khalid Shaykh Muhhamad and Abu Zubaydah. Before the CIA used enhanced interrogations techniques in interrogating Muhammad, he resisted giving any information about future attacks... As the President informed the Nation in his September 6th address, once enhanced techniques were employed, Muhammad provided information revealing ...a plot to crash a hijacked airliner into the Library Tower in Los Angeles
.
Wait just a second here. I thought the timeline has been definitively researched here, and that:
.
(A) KSM was giving good information through traditional interrogation techniques, before they started torturing him,
.
and:
(B) KSM was apprehended after the Library Tower plot was foiled.
.
Oh wait:A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous"—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.
.
http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/
.
So why the hell are we treading the same old worn out lies again? -
24
Here's a NYT article on a Mr. Martinez, who interrogated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, among others:
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/22/washington/22ksm.html
.
He used traditional interrogation tactics, and almost befriended the guy, and got a lot of good information out of him.
.
The article doesn't make a clear distinction between what was gained from Martinez's interrogations and what was gained from torture, so my point (A) above may be incorrect. -
25
The Cheney three step: Leak to the NYT, go on MTP before Russert and quote the NYT to push your point: Saddam is getting the goods to make a bomb.
Get Hiatt to write an piece at his Post; get Chris Wallace to do a fawning interview and get daughter Liz on ABC to do a routine "denial".
Cheney SOP. Russert/ George Step: useful tools.
- michaelscherer In meeting with Obama, Pres. Lee jokes about S Korea's military traditional outfits--"Difficult to fight in," he jokes - 1 week ago
- michaelscherer Helo over Seoul like Blade Runner. G Lightfoot sings, "Sometimes I think it's a shame when I get feelin better when I'm feelin no pain" - 1 week ago
- michaelscherer Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao meets Obama, quotes Confucious: "You can only get the new knowledge when you have the old knowledge." - 1 week ago
Most Popular »
- UPDATE: Guess Who Came To Dinner?
- Time to panic again! Or, on second thought ...
- Blizzard: 'Who Knows' When Diablo III Will Ship
- Happy Thanksgiving From The AppleGeeks
- Checkout Line Conundrums: Should You Get the Extended Warranty? What about the Store's Credit Card?
- A Self-Inflicted Expectation Gap
- FLO TV Personal TV: Being a Couch Potato Has Never Been Easier
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- The Six Greatest Fantasy Novels of All Time
- Fantastic Mr. Fox: Wes Anderson Talks Puppetry Perfection
- The 00's: A Decade from Hell
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- In Italy, A Sex Scandal to Rival Berlusconi's
- Obama's First Year Policies Need Time to Settle In
- How to Get Smarter, One Breath at a Time
- A Brief History of Black Friday
- Workers of the World vs. China Inc.
- The Gospel of Glee: Is It Anti-Christian?
- Satyam Computer Fraud Grows to $2.5 Billion
- A Brief History of Pie
Quotes of the Day »
RSS