Craig C-That's really not at all fair and entirely not true. Plus your play of the word Democrats is immature.

Personally, I find it interesting that we just caught four terrorists in NYC by using good old-fashioned American investigative work. But, if we now want to find out if they are aliens from outerspace plotting to destroy the planet, we can torture them till they admit it.

Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security.

Actually, had Cheney's eye been on the ball, he might have more carefully considered Sec. Albright's repeated warnings as to the seriousness of threat(s) posed by Al-Qaeda and the actionable intelligence reports that he was complicit in ignoring, which immediately proceeded 9/11.

In any case, 9/11 happened on his and the "war president's" watch, and neither has any credibility with the American public on the issues of safety and security in this country...

It's amazing the naivete that is shown in anyone who says that the fact that there have been no attacks since then is indicative of the successful handling of security (vis-a-vis torture) since 9/11. It's a bit like asking someone, "when did you stop beating your wife?" It assumes that there was some beating going on before, and discounts other perspectives. Remember, we went many years without having any kind of attack on U.S. soil, so does that prove that our not having been using torture at that time was effective in preventing attacks? Or is it a lack of critical thinking to just presume that because someone said it was so, that it is so? God help this country if lemmings simply re-state the old "the ends justify the means" argument, without any proof that the ends were even achieved by the means in question.

Today...

Cheney belittled Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison "with little deliberation and no plan."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/21/obama.speech/index.html

Two words...ironic and hypocritical

Folks, let's try this scenario: DICK CHENEY in SUPERMAX - 20 to life. For...

War crimes (Geneva Conventions), war profiteering (Halliburton, KBR), outing Valerie Plame, lying to the American public about the Al-Qaeda connection to 9/11, lying about to the world about WMD's in Iraq, and let's not forget, being asleep at the wheel after 8-months in office and allowing 9/11 to occur on his watch.

Can Obama acutally show where his claim that Gitmo has become a rallying cry for terrorists?...How about releasing the rest of the memo's that show the Interrogiation Techniques worked and we recieved good information,that saved American Lives?

Cheney is a war criminal.

Uh, stormer...

Dude, watch the news. Every expert, including interrogators in the field of battle in Iraq, said that the information gleaned from torture is unreliable -- and actually does more harm than good in that it misleads investigators.

And as to the rallying cry for "terrorists," before we invaded, there was no Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq and Iran did not have a nuclear program.

Perhaps, since they don't report stuff like this on Fox, you might try expanding your news scope...

For once I actually agree with Dick Cheney. Guantanamo should remain open.

And based on the way he looks in that photo, Cheney should be there.

Craig C - I agree. Former Vice President Cheney is right!

Debbie - how do you know what methods they used to get the suspects? Were you there? Also, do you know that we waterboard our own troops so they can see how it feels and get used to it being used on them - bet you didn't know that!!

Maybe if they released the rest of the documents and can see for our selves what information was obtained with interrogation; then we can also decide if it was worth the effort. But so much for Transparency!

Rick in BH. Even Bill Clinton did not believe his own Sec. Albright's opinion . He was to busy screwing the intern and lying to Hillary and the country. Bill should have paid closer attention and there would not have been a 911 attack. How soon the liberal forget when they make mistakes.

When did we EVER find 400 tons of yellow cake plutonium in Iraq? Oh right in DICK's fantasy world!

Rick - They should have listened to Oliver North about Bin Laden!!

Cheney is right... the left wing loons are blinded by Barrack Husien Obama's elegant speech... Everything will come full circle... He will be recognized as the worst President in history. Just with the finances alone, he managed to triple the debt of the US in just a few short months... that great, great job Husien...

Skitch - Look at this site:

http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=1686

Or this one:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/

Thanks Dave, my bad. It was Uranium not Plutonium.

A.C.E. the last administration for war crimes and crimes against the American people.

Arrest

Convict

Execute

Proud Veteran, even during the period when the Bush administration illegally asserted that Geneva did not apply, the Convention Against Torture did. You might want to read it. Also, federal law applied - USC 2340 & 2441. The Bush administration is clearly guilty of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and torture. The question is whether America will hold herself to her own standards.

Many of the methods that we use, no matter how uncomfortable, are not torture. In fact they are far from it. If the amusement parks had thought of water boarding years ago people would be paying for the thrill of being scared out of their senses. I totally disagree though that we are safer because of the methods or the wars. There are more people in the world who want to destroy us now than there ever has been. The sole reason is the Bush/Cheney policies. Actually Cheney/Rumsfeld. Bush was just a mouth piece.

Dave, it should be noted that the yellow cake was known for many years prior to 2003 by the IAEA, UNSCOM, and the US government. That was not the "WMD" which Bush used as an excuse to invade Iraq. In fact, the Bush administration has stated that there were no WMD in Iraq.

Cheney is the terrorist. He should be prosecuted - the only point I differ with the President on.

I watched Cheney's speech. When he started talking about "American values," I fell out of my chair laughing.

I watched Obama's Speech. When he started talking about "the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world," I fell out of my chair laughing.

In what delusional world does the rest of this planet admire us for being a moral beacon?

What did Saddam use on the Kurds? I believe it was Mustard Gas which is a WMD!!!

Proud Veteran-

I thank you for your service to our country, but I must admit, I am so sick and tired of the ridiculous allegations and harsh words used by much of the Republican party when talking about the DEMOCRATIC party.  Now, how does "Rick in BH's" comments make him "hate America"?  Are you serious?  I think it's so interesting how you, mr. Proud Veteran along with so many others (Hannity, Rush etc) always use the "you're a horrible American, or, you don't support our troops" phrases when someone disagrees with the conservative view.  It sounds, tastes and smells fascist to me, so just realize you live in a country that has been called the "melting pot" since the early 20th century.  That means, differing views, religions and cultures exist together and we (mainly you) need to respect those different ideas or move, b/c it's not changing. 

Just to show how completely off base you are, here are ACTUAL QUOTES (there are dozens of them by the way) from Cheney and Bush making a direct connection b/w Al Qaeda and Iraq.  Sounds to me like you're not a very credible source.  Can you back up you OPINIONS with FACTS? 

"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002)

"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Remarks by the Vice President at the Air National Guard Senior Leadership Conference, White House (12/2/2002)

We went to war in Iraq for WMD because of the information Cheney got from torturing torrorists LOL. Nice work Mr. Dicky

The obvious ideological differences aside, when it comes down to it on protecting this nation and its citizens, both men are basically saying the same thing.

Read Obama's speech carefully, ignore the words used and look at the substance, especially the parts about how to deal with the Gitmo detainees. It is NOT essentially different from the Bush approach or the approach of any other President that every had to deal with a national security issue.

Proud Veteran, you are such a hothead I imagine we'll be reading about you in the news some day. Ranting here on a blog or in some public display of raving lunacy, either way, your arguendo is baseless and your name calling is childish.

For the first time in quite awhile, I am going to suggest collapsing your comment(s) above due to the fact that you broke the Code.

Get a grip.

Cheney was never right; he violated Geneva Conventions, he lied about the intel for invading Iraq, he lied about the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the WTC, he obstructed justice and made one of his lackey's the fall guy over the outing of a CIA operative, putting their life at risk. Cheney is a worthless piece of Cow dung and he knows it.

He has absolutely ZERO regard for human lives other than his own worthless hide, no respect for ANY law; god's or man's law. He is too used to a life of privilege. He has never been held accountable for anything he has done that has been wasteful or negligent. He has never done anything to serve anybody except himself. FIVE DEFERRMENTS TO AVOID MILITARY SERVICE. Cheney is indeed proof, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that sh1t floats.

He needs to put a damn sock in his cake-hole before he incriminates himself....OOPS, too late.

mpayz. I only speak the truth and for myself, not some radio host or TV personality.

'Rick in BH' is perpetuating the lies of our enemies and unfortunately many liberals, sad but true. You should ask yourself, why do so many leftist Democrats continuously side with our enemies? Heck, in Berkeley CA after 9/11 and before we went after the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan there were leftist cowards protesting the US response to the murdering of over 3,000 Americans on that day. It is obvious to me and others that these leftist in Berkeley were proudly denouncing America for the response we were planning in Afghanistan, and we were still planning the response. The jerks were anti-American, there is no other way to put it. And Rick in BH is a perfect example of the lying left in the USA.

Perhaps you forgot about the half dozen terrorist training camps that were in Iraq before the liberation. Have you not heard of Salman Pak, where Saddam was happy to have terrorist train there. There was even a plane at Salman Pak were terrorist could train on attacking a plane with the intent of hijacking. There were even double decker buses at Salman Pak like there are in England for terrorist train purposes.

And we did find documents in Iraq that tied Iraqi high officials to Al Qaeda. The statements you have posted just prove what I have stated and do not propose that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. You are incorrectly reading something into these statements that does not exist.

So you are wrong just like Rick.

O.K. dimwits, listen to this reasoning, that is if you have any reasoning about you. I live on 400 acres and I have a vial of nerve gas (for you dimwits that WMD's). Now the U.N. want to search my property because they have had reliable reports that this nerve gas exist on my property. With permission they start their search. Now I am keeping an eye on them and when they get close to where it is hidden I say, "that's enough" get off my property. Now this goes on for ten years. I let them back on my property to search and each time they get close I run them off my property again. After awhile I get tired of doing this and plant the nerve gas on my neighbors property. Then this mean old country comes in and takes over my property but to their surprise they find no WMD. Gosh that sure sounds familiar.

The point is that Obama just decided to close Gitmo without a plan or foreseeing consequences. I have no issues with stopping torture (which it is very debatable that waterboarding is torture since it is common practice to waterboard our own soldiers who are in certain areas of combat since it would likely be used on them if captured), but the reason Cheney is right on this one is because it violates the constitution to have war criminals held on US soil and why Gitmo is needed until there is another option. You can't just make decisions hoping for the best without thinking through what happens after (see almost all of Obama's decisions since he has taken office as similar example). The criminal here is Pelosi who is now accusing the CIA for lying to her about waterboarding when all evidence clearly states she knew...she should be thrown out of her position.

Proud Veteran and Robbob, perhaps one of you can explain why the US has always prosecuted waterboarding as torture, and even court martialed our own soldiers for doing it. The most recent prosecution was in Texas in 1983, where we sent a sheriff and his deputies to jail for waterboarding a suspect. We called it torture then.

Clearly people have forgotten the law, and we need a few prosecutions to remind them of it.

The funny thing about waterboarding and sleep deprivation, and the reason they are part of the SERE program, is that they were used by the Chinese against our soldiers during the Korean war to extract false confessions, yet those torture techniques can be performed without leaving a bruise. Thus, those "confessions" our soldiers gave must have been true, and not coerced, right? SERE began in the 1950s as a program to resist exactly that type of torture.

I presume you'd be OK with Iran waterboarding an American journalist until she confessed to being a spy, then using that confession to convict and execute her, right?

Floyd - you are correct!! Can you say Syria!!!!

I'll bet I can get Dick Cheney to admit to being a flaming homosexual... come on Dick, let's go try out my waterboard!

Chris, I do know they waterboard some of our special forces -- they do not waterboard all our troops. What is your point? It's obviously not the same since our special forces know they are not going to be killed. I wouldn't say an enemy combatant knows that. So, again, I ask -- do you want my sister-in-law in Afghanistan to be waterboarded if she's captured? Do you think that's only fair? She's an enemy combatant, right? I assume you would propose to throw out the Geneva convention.

"We do not torture" should mean more than just a sound bite.

Floyd's post is the reason we are all just wasting our time on this debate. The ignorance out there is overwhelming.

Shrekk, to answer your question simply what was being done in Texas in 83 or your false accusation of US Soldiers is not the same thing that was being done at Gitmo several years ago, you are trying to match apples and oranges and you are not being truthful.

No one here is for U.S. waterboarding interrogations of innocent people. The three terrorists that were interrogated with this technique had American blood on their hands and one of them had beheaded Daniel Pearl with a dull rusty sword to make sure that he felt as much pain as possible before his head came off of his body. Oh yes, he was also the master mind of the 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 Americans, this was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

So Shrekk, you are defend Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and are equivocating a US interrogation technique with the torture of US nationals by use of a technique that is nothing like US waterboarding interrogation? Are you sick or what?

Dear Rick in BH,

Wasn't Ms. Albright working under President Clinton? I do not believe she providing intelliogence reports to the Bush administration. What action did Clinton take against Al Qaeda if Ms. Albright was correct?

Given that it was less than 8 months after President Bush took office when the 9/11 attacks occured, are you going to hold Mr. Obama to the same standard if he is unable to fix our eceonmy by then? I did not think so. No need to reply, I have your answer. Too complicated, Bush's fault, blame dereg of banking industry on Bush (Clinton signed the bill), TARP was ineffective, blah, blah, blah!

Seems to me that if Democrats hold a majority in the House and Senate, as well as the Presidential seat, you Socialists would be more concerned about how Obama could fix the problem and less concerned about the past.

wing

No terrorist dont waterboard they just kill their prisoners. I guess thats better by how some of you talk we are the ones that torture.

I watched Obama's Speech. When he started talking about "the moral authority that is America's strongest currency in the world," I fell out of my chair laughing.

In what delusional world does the rest of this planet admire us for being a moral beacon?

The real world. At least until the Iraq war of opportunity.

Any evidence gained as a result of torture would be inadmissable in court no matter what the person did. How many times have we seen murderers get off on a technicality?

After 9/11 I would have been content if they would have nuked the whole middle east, civilians and all. But that isn't the right thing to do. Its a difference betwene right and wrong and torturing is wrong, plain and simple. It is against the law and when a law is broken there are repercussions.

When the U.S. is all over the world telling people what is right and what is wrong it doesn't help our cause if we have a "do as I say, not as I do" way of doing things.

Unlike some people around here, I don't think all muslims are terrorists. Ive seen many instances of americans wrongly jailed so I can assume there are some people wrongly jailed in Gitmo that have been tortured for information. No proof of it, just speculation. I just know I would hate for someone to come into my house and take me or my family away to jail for a few years and torture us. I respect other humans, no matter what nationality they are.

The Guilty ones can be executed for all I care. They at least deserve to be tried for a crime.

Something very bad is going to happen to wake up the American people that are living in some dream world. Obama is selling this country down the drain. WAKE UP AMERICA......YOU ALL BELEIVE OBAMA IS A GOD......HE IS A DEVIL.........

Now rather than just talking rhetoric, I looked at the listing of the people being held at down there to see who is there. I my mind there are 3 types of people down there.

1. Battlefield combatants -- actually caught on a battlefield with no uniform on of any known description.

2. Known terrorists -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed comes immediatelly to mind.

3. Suspected Al Qaeda members -- thrown into here because someone turned them in.

This last group is the one group that should perhaps be pulled out of Guantanemo until there is more proof that they are in fact Al Qaeda members. I will grant you that.

When I looked at the records of the people interned down there, I stopped at 10 as I didn't want to spend all day at this. Nine of the 10 that I looked at were all caught on the battlefield. They all were from different countries and not Afghanistan. One of these had joined the Tailiban prior to 9/11/2001, the other eight had joined up subsequent to 9/11.

We never exchanged German, Italian or Japanese prisoners of war during World War II. We tried to do some exchanges in Vietnam but those were never done to my recollection. Most prisoners of war are held for the duration. Fort Rucker, Alabama was built by a lot of prison labor -- not forced, but rather for something to do from what I have read.

Khalid was not waterboarded at Guantanemo from what I understand also. He was done elsewhere.

Let's not confuse the excesses done at other sites with what has been done here. It is a good location. Better weather then most of the US locations year round and really no place for them to go to with the exception of Cuba. An island is a pretty good location.

We can argue all we want to about waterboarding, but that is not going to solve the problem for the 99 percent of the people that are there as enemy combatants and need to be held for the duration and not allowed to return to the battlefied. Most were there at 9/11 or shortly afterward and signed up for the jihad as a result of that, not as a result of the Iraq invasion. We can deal with those people differently if you separate them out. Just don't throw the bad ones out also.

If you do that, then you are missing the whole point of taking prisoners on the battlefield. You are sending the message to the soldier on the field that it is better to just 'kill the person' rather than face him again in 2 years time after he returns after being let out. Simplistic? No, just a fact of life. Our soldiers are not murderers, no matter what Rep. Murtha says. They are just people trying to keep things safe. Let's give them rules of engagements that allow them to do their work honorably!

Keep the two groups separate. And deal with Khalid in the way you want to. Just don't let the ones caught on the battlefield go! They don't need to stand trial.

Thank you, Tyler.

Dear Rick in BH,

Wasn't Ms. Albright working under President Clinton? I do not believe she providing intelliogence reports to the Bush administration. What action did Clinton take against Al Qaeda if Ms. Albright was correct?

Given that it was less than 8 months after President Bush took office when the 9/11 attacks occured, are you going to hold Mr. Obama to the same standard if he is unable to fix our eceonmy by then? I did not think so. No need to reply, I have your answer. Too complicated, Bush's fault, blame dereg of banking industry on Bush (Clinton signed the bill), TARP was ineffective, blah, blah, blah!

Seems to me that if Democrats hold a majority in the House and Senate, as well as the Presidential seat, you Socialists would be more concerned about how Obama could fix the problem and less concerned about the past.

Okay, Bob: Here we go...

Albright's warnings and her intel briefs were ignored during the transition period. She refers to this quite often and you can verify this information through numerous sites.

I wouldn't be so chapped about the fact Bush & Co in effect permitted 9/11 to occur on their watch due to sloppy top-down management and their idealistic disbelief in actionable intel the CIA and FBI were providing right up to that fateful day, but when they bray on about the fact they one was a "war president" (and not a Chickenhawk or a guy who took 5 deferments for service) and kept us safe SINCE 9/11, then I have a problem with that. Don't you?

And as long as we're on the subject, where do you get off on comparing the attacks of 9/11 to a financial problem created by Bush & Co as having any sort of relevance to each other? Are you serious??

Bob, when I read you guys posting threads with your little snipings and name callings like "socialist," you just sorta' lose your position. You absolutely qualify as a "fascist," but then you don't want to take time to look that up and consider the meritocracy.

Fox News dot com will give you a lot less grief with your posts...

Proud Vet, your claim that "no one has been tortured at Guantanamo" is refuted by the ICRC, which is the organization that makes a legal determination of torture under the Convention Against Torture, a treaty the US wrote. People who have specific expertise in regards to analyzing and reporting the crime of torture disagree with you. These are the very same people who reported torture under Saddam Hussein.

Proud Veteran, you are as wrong about Gitmo as you are about almost everything else you spew out. The prison guards at Gitmo happen to be US Army military police. And, since the US prosecuted waterboarding as torture and a war crime at the Nuremburg trials, it's hard to see how it suddenly becomes okay because it's us now and some political leader gets his shyster to say it's legal. My military police friend participated under orders in what he would call torture and is still trying to live with himself 3 years later. The prisoners might eat well now, but not always, and never better than our troops. Of course, you wouldn't know. You're just making facts up.

These vermin should be left exactly where they are. I can not understand the logic in shutting down Gitmo just to relocate these rats into the USA (I want just one good sound reason from you libs why we should relocate these scum and don't regurgitate the same crap rhetoric this administration and Pelosi & Co. are barfing out). None, I repeat, none of our allies want to even touch these dogs. This is nothing more than just another political "in your face" tactic perpetrated by Pres. Dopey. The way I see it he has no plan of action other than, "I'm going to show those Bushies & Cheney, I'm the supreme leader now". How can 58% of you think our national security is better under this incompetent when the signs are pointing that he is moving us into a more dangerous direction. I just don't understand the insanity of you on the far-left. Please, do us all a favor and find your OWN country. Leave our country alone!

You Libs just don't get it. It's only torture when other people do it. "America doesn't torture".

How can 58% of you think our national security is better?

Because after being in office for 8-months, I seriously doubt we'll find Obama in Texas chopping wood and denying actionable intel while America comes under attack.

Yes Craig--- i agree with you all the way.

Dick Cheney is a dangerous and ignorant man. His life revolves around generating fear in those around him for purpose of cynically maniuplating them and acccruing personal power. He is no more concerned about how you feel and whether or not you are safe than Osama bin Laden is about his followers who blow themselves up. He is so afraid of the judgement of history, that he will do anything to denigrate and belittle this administration AND all the people who believe in it. His commentary is about making Cheney look big and everyone else look small.

TkWIs

We went to war in Iraq for WMD because of the information Cheney got from torturing torrorists LOL. Nice work Mr. Dicky.

That is an out right lie!!!!!!!

perhaps one of you can explain why the US has always prosecuted waterboarding as torture

I assume you are talking about the Japanese solders who waterboarded our troops in WWII. If not I apologize in advance for the unprovoked and graphic description in the rest of this post where I describe what our men had to go through.

When the Japanese solders waterboarded our men they used real water, not saline solution like we used, which when inhaled would very likely cause pneumonia. They also had no time limit on how long they were allowed to waterboard, like us. They did not have a physician present at all times to make sure that no lasting harm came to the person being waterboarded or to stop the interrogation when the physician felt it was too trying for the person. Since there was not time limit it was up to the Japanese solder on how long he could keep it up which at times resulted in the drowning of the person being waterboarded. If this were to happen the drowned victim would be laid out and the Japanese solder would then stomp on his stomach until either he coughed and vomited up the water or he was very clearly dead. If he died they would dispose of him, if not he would live to have it happen again with the good chance of catching pneumonia.

So if we are doing this in Guantanamo then go ahead and call it torture and prosecute.

"but the reason Cheney is right on this one is because it violates the constitution to have war criminals held on US soil"

Would someone PLEASE show me where in the Constitution the highlighted phrase is found? I just reread the entire Constitution and don't see any reference at all to war criminals. The only reference to anything even close is in Article 3 on TREASON.

I'm not going to comment on any of the other crazy claims made in so many of these posts on this thread or on any of the previous ones relating to this subject. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS LEADERS (the past administration, and maybe even further back) ARE GUILTY OF VIOLATING THE US CONSTITUTION AND INTERNATIONAL TREATIES in this whole "war on terrorism" issue. Let's face it, the past 10 years aren't the first time this country has been faced with terrorism. That's why we got involved in WWI and WWII, the only two TRUE wars (declared as such by Congress.) Every conflict since then have been exactly that....CONFLICTS in which we stepped into internal conflicts in other countries to protect our interests in oil, rubber trees, and many other "natural" resources to keep our capitalistic money hungry society going.

I am so tired of hearing the same BS that bush protected us after 9/11 because there has not been a terrorist attack on US soul by foreign terrorist since then. First of all he was responsible for failing to protect the country on 9/11. There wasn't just the one PDB that warned them of an impending attack. Google "They knew but did nothing" you will find these other warnings]

"Bin Ladin Public Profile May Presage Attack" (May 3)

"Terrorist Groups Said Co-operating on US Hostage Plot" (May 23)

"Bin Ladin's Networks' Plans Advancing" (May 26)

"Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent" (June 23)

"Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats" (June 25)

"Bin Ladin Planning High-Profile Attacks" (June 30),

"Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delays" (July 2)

Then we hear his defenders say that there has not been an attack since 9/11. After the first WTC attack in 1993 there was not another attack on US soil for the remainder of the Clinton presidency. Clinton did not gut the constitution, launch an unnecessary war and make us one of the most hated nations on earth to do it. He did not cost us thousands of American lives and over a trillion dollars to do it. Clinton has his own failings he has yet to answer for (I by no means like Clinton either) but this canard that Bush has made this country safer has to end once and for all.

I won't even go into the economy and the politization of every branch of government over the last 8 years. George W. Bush was a failure on every level. Unfortunately for our country, our world, his powerful friends and family helped him fail upwards. His presidency will set the standard for failure as long as there is an United States of America.

I agree RabidOwl, THAT would be torture that I would never condone or accept.

Cheney is only one of the 3 "chicken hawks" of the Bush administration. Hard to say who was the worst of the three, but you could make a good case for Cheney. Torture prisoners for political gain, to try to justify a totally unneccesary, ill conceived, and immoral war based upon totally false pretenses? How can anyone defend this character?

gmainco, you should google: "Ibn al-sheikh al-Libi", if you want to know about a false confession extracted under torture - which was then used to justify invading Iraq.

Someone above said "Cheney is a terrorist." That's not true. If it were Obama would be sucking up to him.

Tyler,

I have no problem with suspending Proud Vet, but please, there is so much hatred and personal attacks here I would ask that you be more consistent and suspend more people that have no idea to have a discussion and share ideas.

I do not know that he is right or left, but he is an evil. He is the one who made Bush administration make 99% mistakes. He is an anti Americans, justice and humanity.

Odd? No body accepts that 911 HAPPEND on their watch! But that is ok? Even Cheny admits they were not watching national intelligence that close before 911. Why are we rewarding that administration for such failure?

You forgot the last part...."we move on" and we do so morally, ethically and within the letter of the law.

We mourn, we unite, we remember, we move on.

Torture is not only wrong, it's ineffective. People will say anything you want them to to get you stop torturing them.

I'm going to twist your arm until you say Uncle..say it, come on say it.

You are a bumper sticker that doesn't even know what it means. What purely pathetic drivel -- designed to inflame passion, but saying nothing in the end.

Personally, I find it interesting that we just caught four terrorists in NYC by using good old-fashioned American investigative work. But, if we now want to find out if they are aliens from outerspace plotting to destroy the planet, we can torture them till they admit it.

Funny,, these men who were recruited to the group JaisJaish-e-Mohammed, met in prison the same prisons the current administration wants to house Terrorist from Guantanamo Bay. If America is creating Terriost because we chose to water board (3) terriost to save thousands of American lives, then as Americans how outraged showed we be that American Citizens are beheaded just take make a point.....

Thank you Dick Chenney for speaking the Truth and not what makes people feel good.

Truth?  Dick Cheney has told so many lies he wouldn't know the truth if it walked up and shot him in the face.  Nice try.

We teach our kids not to act or live in fear, but we want our leaders to promote fear mongering. Why won't 'Dick' step aside and let our President do his job? We all know 'Dick' is acting only out of self preservation. Presidents have been keeping U.S.A. safe for over 100yrs. The one who failed miserably [Don't forget 9/11 happened under Bush/Dick's watch] resorted to turturing and they still couldn't find Bin Ladin. If torturing was such a good idea, why didn't 'Dick' find Bin Ladin after 7yrs of torturing?

LetsBeReasonable, the USA has not tortured anyone, no matter how much you hope we have so you could complain about it.

Here are the facts, US waterboarding interrogations are not torture, Japanese waterboarding torture was torture, but they are completely different. The Japanese waterboarding torture goes like this, they would pump your stomach full of water and many times salt water until they could not pump anymore into you and then strap you to a board or a tree and then the would start beating you with sticks, metal and wood or whatever they had on hand. This would cause severe pain, internal bleeding, hemorrhaging, and many times death. They really did not care if they got any information for the person, but they did enjoy it.

While U.S. waterboarding interrogation that has been used on three terrorists happen like this. The terrorist is placed and secured on a flat board, a clean towel is put over the terrorist face, then clean and drinkable water is poured over the towel and face of the terrorist and he is then we stop and ask him a question as this is interrogation. While this is happening their is a medical doctor standing by to make sure terrorist is in not hurt or injured. We do not want the terrorist hurt or injured as this may make them not divulge information. This is not torture at all and it is a very effective way of getting information.

And from what I have been told we have saved thousands of American lives with this interrogation technique.

So before you go out their and keep perpetuating the lies of the left perhaps you should find out the truth before you make your ignorant comments.

I hate to say it but the 4 in N.Y. were not terrorist. They were jihad wanta bes and nothing more, if even that. They had no outside connections and obviously no inside connections either. So, I certainly hope that they were able to catch these guys. Actually my question is why did it take 1 year to do so?

So, I would say that we are fooling ourselves if we classify them as Homegrown terrorist. These guys were just a bunch of crocks who met in jail that had a grudge.

Proud Veteran,

Check your facts, according to the DoD, we tortured several detainees to death in Afghanistan. They were not killed by waterboarding, but our techniques were not limited to waterboarding. Who knows what they are actually limited to today.

For those who assert that waterboarding is not torture because we force special operations personnel to undergo it, could there possibly be some difference between being subjected to these techniques by comrades you trust with your life and strangers who you believe would kill you in a heartbeat if they thought they could get away with it?

Here are the facts, US waterboarding interrogations are not torture, Japanese waterboarding torture was torture, but they are completely different. The Japanese waterboarding torture goes like this, they would pump your stomach full of water and many times salt water until they could not pump anymore into you and then strap you to a board or a tree and then the would start beating you with sticks, metal and wood or whatever they had on hand. This would cause severe pain, internal bleeding, hemorrhaging, and many times death. They really did not care if they got any information for the person, but they did enjoy it.

Please show a link to prove this. You say here are the facts, well where is the proof to back up these supposed facts. This is so inaccurate I believe that your theology is showing along with your blindness. The truth is that the only difference between Japanese waterboarding and USA waterboarding is the placement of a cloth over the face (which the USA does) and the tilting of the board so the head is in the downward position (also what the USA does). Outside of these two points it is exactly the same I hate to say this, but you were in our military? God help us all!!!!!!! Boy that waterboarding training I think messed up your brain!!!!But this is typical for a neoconservative to re-write history again!!!!!

By the way I know these facts because my grandfather was one of the poor soldiers to be mistreatedby the Japanese in WWII. Wherte are you getting your facts from - FAUX NEWS. Mine is coming from 1st hand expereince (through my grandfather). Just what I thought - CRICKETS!

Hope,

You might want to take a look at the prisons they would put these convicted Guantanamo terrorists in. They would be supermax, and no one would ever see or talk to them again. It's a pretty horrific life they would face -- IF they are tried and found guilty. There are plenty of future terrorists in prison -- American terrorists. That's a totally new argument.

The problem with Guantanamo is that we imprisoned some innocent people who have not been heard or tried -- only tortured. Regardless of what they used to be, we've made them mentally unstable and undoubtedly very, very angry. We created the very thing we feared. Isn't that how fear goes? We lost the rule of law. We lost the rules of war. We blew it! And Republicans would like to do that over and over and over again -- it's what we call insanity.

At least one of the prosecutions for waterboarding during WWII was for exactly the same technique the CIA used, with a cloth over the face. The Japanese (and Chinese during the Korean war) used several variations on the same theme, but the intent was the same: drown the person until he confesses.

I hate to say it but the 4 in N.Y. were not terrorist. They were jihad wanta bes and nothing more, if even that. They had no outside connections and obviously no inside connections either. So, I certainly hope that they were able to catch these guys. Actually my question is why did it take 1 year to do so?

Now here's the challenge ~ is "Alley" the screen name of (a) Leon Panetta, (b) Robert Mueller, or (c) Dick Cheney. He's the same person who declared Valerie Plame was not a covert agent. Ol' Alley is privy to intelligence not shared with congress, field agents and perhaps not even the president. Not bad for a guy whose regular job is swing shift prep man at McDonalds. That's probably where he gets all his Intel, too.

At least one of the prosecutions for waterboarding during WWII was for exactly the same technique the CIA used, with a cloth over the face. The Japanese (and Chinese during the Korean war) used several variations on the same theme, but the intent was the same: drown the person until he confesses.

They were convicted of waterboarding CIVILLIANS!!! Big difference, but don't let facts get in the way of a good arguement.

Q22, I'd like to know precisely what the difference is between waterboarding a civilian and waterboarding a soldier. Is one a crime and the other not?

Proud Veteran has not "checked a fact" since the Korean War... This thread has a cancer.

Q22, I'd like to know precisely what the difference is between waterboarding a civilian and waterboarding a soldier. Is one a crime and the other not?

Hmmm.... let's see. If you intentionally killed 1000 civillians it would be murder. If you did that to soldiers it would be a successful tactic. So what do you think? Are there different rules concerning actions directed at civillians and those directed at aggressors?

Why won't 'Dick' step aside and let our President do his job?

If that is the way you want it I will issue you this challenge. I will post this comment and neither you or anyone who wants to defend you can respond. Let's see how you deal with your own terms.

icedini, I hereby call you a liar and accuse you of spreading nothing but your lies and hate.

Debbie and Q22, have you researched and found out as I have the extent of the torture "our" troops have inflicted? I have "heard" tales of sodomy and rape of women and children, THAT were in fact photographed, hence the reason Obama has backstepped on letting the TRUTH be shown.

I think some of the comments from some (knight who says nee) kind of makes me believe stories being told because our government covers it up are true. And it makes me fear my own neighbor if I believe differently as he.

Makes me sad to be of the human animal. Animals don't torture each other for pleasure or greed or INFO like we do.

Do I feel safe? I don't fear the terrorist. I fear my government and my neighbor.

Veteran, Rabid and Knight,

Love it :)

Please show a link to prove this. You say here are the facts, well where is the proof to back up these supposed facts.

sickandtired-554972

Here is some reading for you. Go to Chapter VIII and let me know if this is enough to back up the "supposed facts"

Why don't you all Darth Cheney supporters march on down to a recruiting office, and sign up! Our military needs a break and needs to come home. You all want to fight then get off your azzes from your computers and give our military a break!!!

You are all lemmings of this vicious evil old man, who is now being vocal to cover his azz because he KNOWS HE IS WRONG, BROKE THE LAW, AND SHOULD BE IN FRIGGIN' GITMO HIMSELF. Cheney should be apprehended for all the lies and fearmongering he afflicted to the American people. Y'all need to take your rose colored glasses and see that our military is suffering beyond belief if they haven't sacrifice their lives already. Aside from losing limbs and mental problems, they have been used as a scapegoat for the turtures they were instructed to do by this evil old man. Yeah, I'd like to to see his sneering arrogance get a taste of his own medicine and see how he likes that.

Looks like it didn't post my link. Well here it is again. It's a pretty loud cricket, in reference to post 2.9.

I guess it does not want me posting the link. For some reason it keeps getting edited out. Well, If you are interested in reading what I can't post here, look up chapter VIII of the Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, 1 November 1948.

What is our President trying to do? I suspect he's trying to follow the rule of law and support the Constitution, unlike the previous administration.

He is following the LAWS of this country. Something that never entered the minds of Bush and Cheney.

Why do we need them on our soil? Because we are detaining them illegally, indefinitely and without trial, that's why. Try them, hear them out, and make a decision.

A combatant that is caught on the field of battle can be held indefinitly or untill the conflict is over.Obama even has said there needs to be a place to hold these Combatants that we can not release,So why not keep them at GITMO? We already have a place in operation and it will not cost us a fortune to build another,Gitmo is a perfect place,well isolated,away from the Media,$hit house lawyers,American soil,and no place to escape to.

Who said they were caught on the battlefield? Many were rounded up in the US after 9/11. We didn't declare a war until the Iraq invasion.

...and we didn't even declare war on Iraq. Congress hasn't declared war since WWII - they have shirked their Constitutional responsibility.

What many fail to realize is there is no proof many of these "terrorists" were even combatants. Our troops in Afghanistan were given funds to pay tribal warlords to hand over "terrorists" - guess what, they handed people over, no questions asked. Does that mean they are AQ members ? Probably not, probably tribal rivals.

Remember, 300 were released from Gitmo under Bush's watch, and only 3 prosecuted. The whole thing reeks of BS. The President is right, try them or deport them to their home country to be tried.

If these guys are the worst terrorists in the world, and we are AFRAID (Because we're afraid of everything now, even our own shadows) to have them here, why haven't their buddies tried already to get them out of there? Gitmo looks quite ramshackel to me, like it couldn't hold a bar b que, water front property, controlled by Castro, an 'enemy'. I think if any of these guys were high value, somebody would have at least tried to get them out by now. I'm so sick of America being quaking in our boots little cowards. Cowboy, up, pull yourselves up by the bootstraps, and have the courage to defend the law. That's all our forfathers would ask of us.

The problem with the "combatants caught on the field of battle" defense is that there is no battlefield. "Terrorism" doesn't have battlefields.

There is no war against "terrorism". There can't be. War is declared by Congress. They have not done so. They can't. With whom would they declare war? Al Qaeda? It's not a nation with a land to attack. There's no defined goal.

The problem with GITMO is the gray area. If the claim is that we are at war then the detainees are prisoners of war and the Geneva conventions apply. However if the detainees aren't held as prisoners of war then they are criminals and should be processed through our courts of law.

The Bush administration took the wrong appraoch and tried to define a new middle ground between war and crime labeling them "Enemy Combatants". But instead of saying you have the rights of a prisoner of war or you have the rights of a criminal in this country, they took the worst possible approach and essentially said, you have no rights at all.

The purpose of the Geneva convention is to signify that even in the case of armed conflict between nations, human rights must be maintained. Does it make sense that the US, for whom rights are so important, would set up an artificial scenario to deal with non-nation state based aggressors in which no human rights are extended?

The constitution allows for flexibility to deal with new situations. That's its strength. Why would we destroy that by dealing with the complex and difficult issue of terrorism by resorting to constituional anarchy in the form of GITMO rather than address the differences and challenges this new form of aggressor poses and deal with it in a way that does not demean us?

Obama says he is following the law, but on other issues he has taken a position clearly in contradiction to those laws.

In other words, he is as selective in following the laws and Bush was accused of doing (and I was never a Bush fan).

Americans are cowards today.

When George Washington was fighting for the very existence of this country, he refused to use torture against foreign mercenaries. A few years later, while the White House was burning, the capital occupied by a foreign army, and the survival of the country at stake, President James Madison called torture an "outrage against the laws of honorable war and against the feelings sacred to humanity."

For 225 years, the US military had a formal policy of not torturing, even if sometimes we made mistakes. But all it took for America to forget its long-held values were a few men with box cutters, and the support of the right-wing. Bin Laden thanks you.

Obama says he is following the law, but on other issues he has taken a position clearly in contradiction to those laws.

What specifically? You leveled the charge so surely you can validate the claim.

He completely ignored contract law with regards to GM and the expressed outrage of AIG bonuses. He has completely ignored Constitutional law which clearly outlines the duties of the president. Those are two such examples of Obama choosing which laws to obey and which ones to ignore.

MC - If I were you, I'd be more concerned about how to spell apologize than how to spell hypocrisy.....

Desertgirl - Can you be specific and offer any concrete evidence to substantiate your outlandish statement?

MC - you're a liar:

Can't you people discuss ANYTHING without lying through your teeth?

Where the heck did my links go? I, at least, try to provide backup - does Newvine have a problem with that?

Let's try again:

MC, go to FactCheck dot org or to any of the other resources available to you on the Internet. You will see that your arguendo is clearly unsubstantiated.

Geez-us...

WE do not need that old dog hanging around looking for someone to bite just because he feels the loss of power

Further research on my comments and question submitted under the first collapsed Craig C comments, check out this link for more information on US Constitution and War Criminals. Very interesting reading. The Constitution DOES NOT discuss war criminals. People, including the courts, use the powers of Congress and the POTUS as outlined in sections 1 & 2 AND Military Law Powers that existed PRE- CONSTITUTION, to determine War Tribunals and the power to try 'war criminals". What I found most interesting are the many rulings that related to war crimes committed AFTER Congress has DECLARED war, not in conflicts or pre-war declarations. So since none of these events since the end of WWII have happened related to the DECLARED WAR of WWII, then how are any of these activities really 'war crimes" except under the power of the TREATIES that we have signed under the powers vested by the Constituion. Can get very confusing. Guess we just have to let the SCOTUS and the International Courts rule on all of this.

Law reports of trials of war criminals

By United Nations War Crimes Commission

http://books.google.co.vi/books?id=Z-xlVF_5Hu8C&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=war+criminals+and+US+Constitution&source=bl&ots=ooaRD30_Bj&sig=rxRIf9f1VZyxu1cg4w5qizy1Z00&hl=en&ei=4dUVSuf-LI7LjAfvuNTfDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

hey, "MC" - GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT about Pelosi and the Starkist/Del Monte accusations - this is an old rumor and untrue. Rather than investigate it yourself, you just spout whatever you hear that is negative and try and perpetuate the myth. Typical response we've seen for over a year from the Republican'ts...

"When torturing a terrorist for information, how do you know he isn't lying when he gives it to you? How do you even know he's a terrorist?"

Well... the first clue was that the P.O.S. was caught red handed during military action. But you are right. they should not have been captured. We should have turned into confetti right there on the battle field.

who cares what the rest of the world thinks, i don't and i'm a taxpayer in the good ole usa look who cut off heads of americans it sure wasn't done in sunday school no it was done by muslim terrorist and obama should never,never bow down to a muslim unless he is one.

Go USA, what law did Obama break with respect to GM?

He completely ignored contract law with regards to GM and the expressed outrage of AIG bonuses. He has completely ignored Constitutional law which clearly outlines the duties of the president. Those are two such examples of Obama choosing which laws to obey and which ones to ignore.

He asked the CEO to resign he did nOT fire him.

The Obama administration asked Rick Wagoner, the chairman and CEO of General Motors, to step down and he agreed, a White House official said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/20625.html

Did AIG not get their contracted bonuses? Yes they did. Now if they want anymore money from the taxpayers (represented by the government) then they must perform well without the bonuses until they prove themselves worthy.. What's illegal here Go USA?

The president said he has asked Geithner to "pursue every single legal avenue to block these bonuses and make the American taxpayers whole."

Obama spared AIG's new CEO, Edward Liddy, from criticism, saying he got the job "after the contracts that led to these bonuses were agreed to last year."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/16/AIG.bonuses/index.html

MC went off topic only because he can't come up with anything factual on the original topic.

Oh wait, he didn't have anything factual in his off topic subject.

And as far as Obama going against the law regarding GM. Which laws did he violate? I couldn't find any.

The AIG bonuses were included in a legal contract between the company and its CEO's. They were required by law to give them the bonuses. Fortunately many of them did the right thing and gave the bonuses back, after public outcry. We may not like it but tough.

Since when is public outrage the equivalent of law? It's not.

Who cares about what the rest of the world thinks of us. We are here to take care of us.... not them, the rest of the world certainly does not give a sh*t about what we think about them!

Grow up people the naive are running this country now and it is scary!

I wish that we could build a "Terrorist Prison" on Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas . . .But . .

Quite frankly, I'd rather have them in our prison system in the US. Unlike other countries, our enforcement agencies are on the ball. Just think if we would forward these scumbags to Yemen! They'd be out in less then a month: either breakout, or pay-off.

Cheney is a lying idiot. We need to close this embarrassment right now! Give these jihadist jerks a trial and pack them away for the rest of their lives.

another "scared" republican. The terrorists certainly got their moneys worth. Scared the pants off of you.

we love blamming everyone but not us, oh no , not me, you'er my problem or what's wrong is the other guys doings not our doings

Please remember who was responsible for 9/11 and it was caught in video and Cheney and Busch cover it. Obama is doing a great job by reaching to every one and try to fix all the problem caused by the aggresive behaviour of the previous administration. Please think that no country is really like us any more, thanks to the previous administration, I believe that Obama will put us back on track to be the most powerful but respectful country.

In order to understand the horrible types of decisions that needed to be made after 9-11 we must be looked at it on a very personal level.

Not 3,000 Americans, but think of it as your family. If your son was just murdered by terroist and you suspected they are planning to murder your wife, daugther, mother and father. You were able to catch one of the terrorist. You ask him questions politely. You say please tell me where and when you are planning to kill my family. All the terroirst say is "You will find out." Do you walk away becuase there are no other methods availble within the scope of your so called LAW?? Well guess what folks you do now because Obama gave our enemy all of our techniques. WHY???? WHY???? I was so caught off gaurd when it was annouced. It seems very strange, very odd. Why was it necessary to give away these critcal techniques. Why not just say were will not use any techniques EVER. At least if we get attacked again if he "Changes" his mind its at our disposal. Just seems to me to be wreakless.

The 60% who can't see that Obama is just trying to be popular rather than a leader should lose thier citizenship. I lost people on 9/11. I lived 20 blocks from Ground Zero. If waterboarding will protect INNOCENT men, women and children - I'm all for it! The rest can move to Switzerland.

who is going to take it from me? YOU!!!!! lolololol. come on and try. It never ceases to amaze me how liberals are the first to start calling people names. They run out of proof, so they name call like children. Grow up!!!

I don't see anyone calling names here....

Bobalu, I'm sorry for your loss. Cheney and Bush didn't do their jobs by paying attention to the warnings that were coming in. They took advantage of the attack and used torture to make a case for going into Iraq instead of going after Bin Laden. Other than to force people to say what you want to hear (for your own agenda), torture DOES NOT WORK! Why do people not understand this? It's not a TV show! There is no producer. There are no commercials. The people who are charged with conducting these tortures have told us IT DOES NOT WORK. Cheney is trying to cover his *ss because he should be put in prison for breaking the law. If the DOJ had said murder was legal, would you say OK? What if it was your child that was picked up? Not everyone at Guantanamo had anything to do with this war. They were picked up by people trying to make money after 9/11. The truth is out there. Go find it.

Uh, Birdman?

Short memory, or did you forget we just watched a week's worth of pontificating on the part of the GOP to re-name the Dems? Get off your crack-pipe.

Rick calling a bed wetter a bed wetter is not name calling, its the truth.If Cheney is so wrong why will not the Obama administrartion release all the memo's the ones showing Interrogration techniques worked and saved American Lives?

Yeah, stormer...

Spending the week trying to "rename the Democratic party" is indeed right up there with bed-wetting. I didn't know that about Michael Steele or the Republican Nat'l Committee.

Bobalu - we will all die one day. selling out your morality to try to extend your life a few years doesn't seem like a wise trade to me. Being an "American" isn't geographical, it's philosophical.

Re: Cheney and the truth?

He can't handle the truth, ergo the obfuscation...

Bobalu, that's the most un-American thing I've ever heard, and it smacks of totalitarian ideals (guilty, no need to prove it, we'll just presume it). Despite the fact that you deserve it, I hope you're never placed in a position of being presumed guilty just because someone decides you might be. I'm sorry I can't join you in abandoning all of America's principles in the name of protecting myself from danger. Don't look now, but danger is all around you. Abandoning American principles doesn't make you safer, it just makes you less American.

seems to me the RNC was namecalling just yesterday. How about the Democratic Socialism party. Pretty nasty to me. So nasty they recalled it.

Fact, there are about 1.5 million violent attacks in the US every year. There are 80 deaths a day from handguns. 50,000 die a year from car crashes. 30,000 a year die from flu.

Lets put AQ in perspective here, should we really allow the GOP to continue to trash the consitution based on one event ? Get a grip.

babalou, I lost a family memeber that day too. A drunk driver on I-80 took my nephew. Waterboardeing is illegal, and it will not help protect your family, I don't care where you live. If we torture, we will have control of MAYBE 0ne man, or a small group of men. If we uphold the laws we set fro our own selves, and everybody else, that give us power over the globe.

It's funny how many Bush-supporters have "forgotten" about the 9 months of Presidential Daily Briefings that preceded the 9/11 attacks and how Osama Bin Laden was mentioned in them (that is according to the interviews of members of the Bush administration in front of Congress about the 9/11 response) and nothing was done. It may be true that Bill Clinton could have done more at the end of his presidency (though he did have a meeting with George Bush, specifically discussing Osama Bin Laden), but right-wingers can't deny that the Bush Administration had the opportunity to stop 9/11 just as much as Clinton may have, but didn't.

Beyond that, 9/11 doesn't condone torture. It may sound childish, but it's true, it makes us no better than the terrorists. Everyone can go around talking about how America is the best country in the world, but if we are treating people the same as the worst countries in the world and disregarding our OWN laws, our allies will not trust our judgment (as we saw in the last few years of the Bush administration, and no, I'm not just talking about France) and it will spread hatred of the America among the terror cells. And if you don't believe that last part, just remember how much hatred American's felt when people they loved and cared about were killed on 9/11 and how we felt when our soldiers or citizens were captured, beaten, tortured, and killed over in the Middle East...because I can guarantee you, those exact same feelings are being felt by the terrorists who see their brothers in Gitmo and they aren't afraid to act on them.

StormerF,

Dick Cheney told everyone that he had seen the proof, he also said that the truth is what we tell people the truth is.

He promised to request these memos on Fox, came back and told everyone that he had requested the memos and yet there is no record of any such request. He also claimed that valuable information was obtained via torture that we now know was actually obtained through legal interrogation techniques.

If he is telling us the truth about the memos he saw,

why lie about requesting them?

why lie about intelligence obtained without them?

Let's not forget that Cheney is on publicity tour for his legacy book and his so called request was a publicity stunt to promote that book. Cheney is out for Cheney and is trying to re-write history so he can make more money.

Let's let our legally elected president protect us with a conscience for us and humanity. Torture and the Bush Administration's agenda caused the death of more then 2000 American soldiers in Iraq. Fact!

VC, I think we're over the 3,000 mark since Bush declared "mission accomplished." This, of course, does not include the untold thousands of innocent Iraqi lives lost due to this conflict, nor the upheaval and displacement of both people and dollars.

Senseless, unbelievable chaos from those who would wage war to their benefit...

Venturaca, Your legally elected pres. had already put liars and tax cheats in his office. And if your wonderful pres, were that transparent, he wouldnt have side stepped all the neg. issues that came up during the elections. Read, question these politicians that we give so much money and power to, none of them deserve to be in office, fromeither partt!

Dont be a stubborn Obama supporter who cant question his governing. I think he will go down as one of the weakest pres. we have ever had. He makes Cheney look good, and thats bad!!!!!!!!!

Well Diedre, I'm glad you agree we "legally elected this president..." 'Bout time!

As to questioning our politicians, I would indeed like to question Bush & Co regarding the first $350 bil laid out to banks on Wall Street in the first half of the bailout last summer: "Where did all that money go and when are we getting pad back with interest?"

Since you brought it up, I assume you've heard that the appointed board that oversees these distributions does not, thanks to Bush & Co, have any accounting of where that money went. Paulson, Bernanke and gang simply tossed about $350 bil out the window on Wall Street - and pulled down the shades.

Just so you know, that is NOT happening with this administration. And boy have we heard some grousing by the industries on that one...

You can continue to hang onto that lamp shade if you so desire, but history will write the truth of what has been and what will be.

I think you are making headway witthese guys Rick... keep up the good work.. You seem to be able to get reason across...GOd knows they need it.. Could you give Cheney a call?

Cheney,

Is acting like an individual that appears to be confused with facts, that he has stated in the past eight years with his Admin. - He is not in control; therefore, he has trouble leaving the stage! GET OUT CHENEY, YOU'VE HAD YOUR CHANCE!

Yea, the same tired old tactics that have kept you safe for the past 8 years. Wake up Dimwit!

rev time...no one forgot just IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US...your friends the saudi's did...remember 17 out 19 were saudies but these are good friends of the Bush's therefore they are to be protected at all cost

rev time,

Wow, time for your meds I think.

Yes everyone thought we should do something about Al-Queda. To bad Bush and Cheney dismissed the warnings about Al-Queda before the attacks on 9/11, that may have helped. Listening to the experts never was Cheney's strong suit I guess.

None of us have forgotten about 9/11, most of us Americans just think maybe we should have gone after Al-Queda instead of Saddam Hussein, who by the way, was hated by Al-Queda about as much as Israel. Further, most of us Americans, you know "the Idiots", can also read. Therefore we can see for ourselves that torture does not get real information. Instead it was being used to try and get these terrorist to link Iraq to Al-Queda.

Finally, most of us do realize that terrorism has been going on for quite a while now, once again, we do read. It is just that we think that to give in and abandon the American way of life, you know, where people have rights and are suppose to be treated with dignity, is to let the terrorist win. Real Americans do not think we should abandon the Constitution because we have been attacked by religious zealots. Maybe if we had used the world's horror at this attack and truly tried to address these fundamentalist we would be further along with a solution today.

how can you be taken seriously when you protest the treatment of terrorists and then demand that people who disagree with you and simply practice free speach should loose their citizenship. For crying ourtload, you can at least treat people who simply disagree with you as well as those who want to kill you.

OldPop, I dunno' buddy...

It's like swimming upstream against some very powerful leeches. You barely feel them sucking out the blood. But hey, rolling over to wingnuts on Oxycotin, entertainers on Fox, and fossilized politicos like Cheney and Rummy who've sullied this country with every move they make -- it simply ain't going to happen anymore.

I've enjoyed your posts as well.

Interesting because they don't agree with you, they need to be expelled? hum?

No, we're into a little arguendo... But some of the "passion" could be dialed down a bit. You have to admit, if the tide is not going the Republican way there tends to be a lot of complaining...

"A lot of rednecks are pushing up Cheney's score. I didn't know there were so many. "

Nice. Real Nice. Typical liberal behavior. If you don't agree with me, I'm either going to revoke your citizenship or call you names.

The simple fact of the matter here is that Barack Obama is a talking head with no agenda besides his own. He does not care about America or its people, just his own agenda. If you think having water poured on your face for 40 seconds is torture, then you've lost perspective. These methods DID prevent another attack. It's a FACT. Now that Obama has dumbed down the country, and caused it to forget the horror of 9/11, the blood of the next attack is on HIS hands.

Oh, and siting how many people die each day from car accidents, and using that to compare to a terrorist attack? Are you out of your mind? How can you compare an accident with murder?

Ah Yes...Cheney...Ever the Great Control Freak...Particularly when his own vested military cronies interests are at stake. Cheney talks about exposure? How exposed were we when he and Bush ignored all of the warnings about bin Laden? How exposed were the 3,000 people who died thanks to his mishandling of Katrina? Cheney needs to shut his scowling mouth if all he has to say is "War, War, War".

FACT: Obama has reserved the right to use enhanced interrogation techniques, including waterboarding as he sees necassary even after calling foe the end of the program.

If another 9/11 should happen do you think he would not use any means to obtain information. Make it more personal, if your family members was being held hostage (mother, wife or child) and you had the opportunity to interrogate one of the bad guys what would you do to get the information from him to save your family members life? It is easy to sit back and armchair quarterback the decisions made but if you say that you would not torture a bad guy to save your family then you are either a liar or to dumb to tell the truth. AS Americans we need to hold ourselves to a higher moral standard but in times of 9/11 it is just as important to let the bad people of the world know "don't tread on us" or we will fight back.

You are so delusional in your knowledge about 9/11 and Bush and Cheney. There absolutley would not be ANY of those 3000 people who died if Clinton would have accepted Bin Laden and tried him when he was offered him time and time again, but when your getting a b-job in the oval office I guess that would cloud your mind as to what you should be doing and that is so much more important. You liberals want soooooo bad to demonize Cheney and Bush and we love this because if you look, Cheney's poll numbers of approval are rising because people are believing what he is saying, unlike Obama who does nothing but BLAME, BLAME, BLAME, BLAME, etc...and takes no responsibility for what he has done to bring this country to bankruptcy, lowering our defenses and kissing the behinds of the special interest groups such as his beloved ACORN which is one of the most corrupt crimininal organizations.

Boy, the left wing loons are out today. Don't worry, Nancy Pelosi is giving a news conference right now to explain herself from the idiotic statements she made the other day. She has had time to get her speech writers to write her explaination and get her story straight. As for the #4 Cheney is evil post. When a 911 event happens again, I hope they take your D/A out first.

Fear mongering is a tactic only used by liberals because the truth is not in thier vocabulary. They are only about power not truth i.e. Pelosi. We do not cut off heads of the enemy as the Muslims did to American Citizens. We do not treat women as second class citizens as these nations do. So shut up about Cheney and you and the other loberals leave now.

Fear mongering is a tactic only used by liberals because the truth is not in thier vocabulary.

So according to your statement, The Bush/Cheney administration of the last eight years was liberal? Interesting.

We do not cut off heads of the enemy as the Muslims did to American Citizens. We do not treat women as second class citizens as these nations do.

Do you know why? Can you tell me why? Of course you can -- for the same reason we don't torture. Our Constitution! I bet you can't tell me which Amendments support those ideas though. If you could, you wouldn't have made those statements in the first place. (Answer: 8th & 19th Amendments)

So shut up about Cheney and you and the other loberals leave now.

Apparently you don't believe in allowing others to voice their opinions, even as your voice yours. You sir, are a true Conservative Amerikan Hypocrite. (FYI, that would be the FIRST Amendment)

Ok, so question for you...

Let's say your parents, significant other, or child is being held for ransom or that there is some clear and present threat against their lives. It's not a question of IF something bad is going to happen to them, but when. Let's say you have someone involved in your loved one's abduction or the threat to their life. You know that person has information that would keep your loved one safe. This person is totally non-responsive and even smug/hostile about any purely "humane" means to secure information from them. You have a means that you are pretty sure will secure the information that person is unwilling to give. It's not totally nice, but it will do no lasting or even physical harm to that person. You can't be *guaranteed* that the information you get will be accurate, but how accurate it is will be played out by whether or not you foil the plot.

Given the above scenario, would you still hold to your supposed moral high ground? It's all well and good to paint in large ethical strokes when it's not YOUR loved one in immediate danger. However, I question what your choices would be when the situation's not so black and white.

Bear in mind, the people who were waterboarded were terrorists. There's zero ambiguity that they have been involved in very heinous crimes against innocent people.

Trust me, I don't like the idea of actual torture. However, I also know that the world doesn't always fit into nice, neat solutions either. To deal in complete absolutes often leads to complete and absolute failure.

Also, I have to wonder...why is it not okay to use a method of harsh interrogation used on our own special forces as a point of training on a hardened terrorist, but we cheer when Navy snipers blow the head off of a teenage terrorist. This country, in the name of political rhetoric, has some real ethical oddities. I know that personally I'd rather be waterboarded than killed...what about you?

A.) I'm not a liberal. I am a left wing radical. B.) Redneck is not a name. It is the right wing counterpart of lib. You stop with liberal, I'll stop with redneck.

Actually, to be totally accurate, "conservative" is the opposite of liberal. Liberal is a political designation. Redneck is not. The fact that liberals have chosen to disassociate themselves with that label and instead re-adopt the term "progressive" is a fairly recent development. As long as I have been following politics, even the media will call a liberal candidate liberal.

Let's say your parents, significant other, or child is being held for ransom or that there is some clear and present threat against their lives. It's not a question of IF something bad is going to happen to them, but when.
...
You can't be *guaranteed* that the information you get will be accurate, but how accurate it is will be played out by whether or not you foil the plot.

This is a hypothetical situation so narrowly tailored as to be impossible. Jack Bauer is a fictional character from a TV show.

In reality, you have no way of knowing if your torture method will be more effective than traditional techniques. We have heard numerous professionals say it is less effective. We have heard Dick Cheney say torture is more effective.

Personally, I'm more likely to believe the professionals with years of experience who don't have any reason to lie over a 5 time draft dodger who has zero experience on the subject and every reason to lie, and has been shown to lie repeatedly, including in this latest speech.

why is it not okay to use a method of harsh interrogation used on our own special forces as a point of training on a hardened terrorist

Because one is used for the purposes of training, and the other is used as an intelligence gathering technique.

I know that personally I'd rather be waterboarded than killed...what about you?

That's a false choice. Police forces routinely kill people who are putting innocents at risk of imminent harm. This is accepted practice worldwide. Police forces (at least in Amercia) do not waterboard people for any reason.

This is a hypothetical situation so narrowly tailored as to be impossible. Jack Bauer is a fictional character from a TV show.

In reality, you have no way of knowing if your torture method will be more effective than traditional techniques. We have heard numerous professionals say it is less effective. We have heard Dick Cheney say torture is more effective.

Personally, I'm more likely to believe the professionals with years of experience who don't have any reason to lie over a 5 time draft dodger who has zero experience on the subject and every reason to lie, and has been shown to lie repeatedly, including in this latest speech.

You're assuming, falsely, that all experts agree on how effective the methodology is. My example is theoretical, but I can assure you that our officials deal with those sorts of situations routinely. I sincerely doubt that given the possibility of saving your loved one that you'd completely rule out a methodology which is neither physically damaging, nor so heinous that we're not willing to use them on our own servicemen.

At some level, even incarceration is "torture". You have to draw a line somewhere. That line is not black and white. I can guarantee you that the current administration still makes use of sleep deprivation as a tool. Why doesn't that fall into the same category? The simple fact is that all forms of interrogation involve someone giving information against their own free will.

I really wish I could edit comments here. Clearly the first part of my last post was intended to be a quote.

You're assuming, falsely, that all experts agree on how effective the methodology is. My example is theoretical, but I can assure you that our officials deal with those sorts of situations routinely.

Agreed. Professionals can honestly disagree. I haven't heard any former FBI or CIA interrogators come out and say waterboarding is NOT torture; I have heard many say it is torture. In fact, the only people I have heard say "not torture" are A) those with a vested interest in covering their backsides, and B) commentators who don't know the first thing about it and have never experienced it.

I have seen two conservative commentators subject themselves to WB. Prior to the procedure, both asserted it was not torture. After the procedure, both said it was torture.

(Mancow, Christopher Hitchens)

I sincerely doubt that given the possibility of saving your loved one that you'd completely rule out a methodology which is neither physically damaging, nor so heinous that we're not willing to use them on our own servicemen.

This is why we don't let people under duress make these sorts of decisions; for example, see the 25th Amendment. I freely admit that if I had a guy who kidnapped my family tied to a chair, his would be slow and painful. I also admit that when it was all done, I would be less of a person for it. The morally and practically correct thing to do would be to have another interrogator interview the subject(s).

I really wish I could edit comments here. Clearly the first part of my last post was intended to be a quote.

If I had a nickle for every time I said that.... I'd have a lot of nickels. You have up to two chances to revise your post before it becomes permanent (permanent!), and must do it within four minutes each revision. The reason for this is to prevent people from posting something and coming back the next day and completely revising it after others have posted responses.

It has taught me to be a lot more careful to proofread before I hit post.

Jirby; redneck has nothing to do with politics. Here are two definitions that are most commonly associated with redneck:

I have never in my life ever heard of a republican or democrat called a redneck unless they were either of those definitions above. Thus, redneck has nothing to do with political naming. Liberals and conservatives are the opposites to each other, whereas, democrat and republican is the opposite of each other.

Jim, after 7 deferments to get out of "service to his country," EXACTLY!

Fat Basturd is a self-aggrandizing draft dodger of the worst sort, and it absolutely amazes me that anyone would defend his pattern of obfuscation and criminal behavior.

Half truths,told by the Obama Administration,why not release the memo's that showed the whole picture? Where interrogation techniques saved American lives.

Stormer, the memos Cheney wants released have been seen by Senator Feingold, who says they do not support Cheney's case. More importantly, FBI director Mueller says that no attacks have been prevented because of torture. The still classified CIA Inspector General report supposedly is highly critical of Cheney's torture program, and also supposedly says that torture did not prevent any attacks.

We do know for a fact that Cheney and others have lied about their successes from torture - Cheney and Bush claimed that KSM confessed to a plot to destroy LA's Library Tower and that they thwarted the plot because of that confession...but KSM wasn't captured until a year after that "plot" was foiled. Cheney, Bush, and Yoo need to get together and agree on a timeline, because every time they speak they're admitting to war crimes.

What the FBI has said is that false confessions from torture have wasted critical resources.

The professional interrogator in Iraq, "Matthew Alexander", has claimed that torture by America has been the cause of 50% of US deaths in Iraq. Other military experts - as well as the Levin report - have come to the same conclusion: that US torture recruited insurgents, both foreign and Iraqi. Torture has COST American lives.

stormef - because they don't exist...

Cheney only wants those select memos (which he knows can't be released as they are part of an ongoing trial) released.

I say let's release everything through a special prosecutor or truth commission. Since you claim to want to know the "whole picture," I assume you're in full agreement with that sentiment.

StormerF - Obama doesn't want to show the pictures because he's afraid it will make good fodder for the terrorists to sign up more yung men. Also, some of the things that might be shown may be things we still use. Do you want the terrorists t know what we do so they can train harder not to be broken, to be prepared for what we do?

Half truths,told by the Obama Administration,why not release the memo's that showed the whole picture?

Oh, I'm certain they will release them, StormerF ~ just as soon as the CIA can draft them, vett them for degree if accuracy so there will not be the f-ups of the first ones they tried to pass off as credible. In the first go-round, they named a legislator as being present for four briefing sessions ~ and were proven wrong on three of the dates. They also named two legislative aides as being present for briefings ~ one had iron clad evidence of being somewhere else on that date and the other had left government employment two months prior to that briefing session. If the CIA had "documents" that cleared them, they would be published in 14-point bold type across the front page of every newspaper in the country. They don't even exist to be "declassified" which should tell you volumes. I'm sure they exist in Cheney's mind ~ but he's trying to cover his own butt. Cheney's pontificating has nothing to do with national security. He's just trying his very best to poison the jury pool. That is plainly obvious.

Jim, did Cheney request and receive 5 or 7 military service deferments? I can't recall...

You know, had Cheney served, he might have had a clearer perspective as to the horrors of war. I found the run-up to Bush & Co's invasion of Iraq and the fact that they would listen to no one - simply and stunningly unbelievable.

The war perpetrated on that country was a sad excuse for the hurt of 9/11.

In 1989 he told George C. Wilson of the Washington Post, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

FIVE

Renard

http://gabby3239.newsvine.com/_news/2009/05/13/2811857-the-2004-campaign-military-service-cheneys-five-draft-deferments-during-the-vietnam-era-emerge-as-a-campaign-issue-the-new-york-times

HE has to be about the most arrogant sob

I wonder why "O" DUMBO was defending and reminding us of his stance on national security.......maybe he is worried and realized that saying it is totally different from solving it......GOOD LUCK LIB'S.....you will need it

Well there you go again Sherri. What do you think the terrorists enlistment rate will be when they see the president of The United States basically acting in behalf of our enemy? This may be the one thing George Bush had right, let them rot. I'm truly sorry for your loss of a loved one along I-80. But this Islam extremist threat to our nation is not going away, and negotiation is a sign of weakness. This has been going on since the country was founded. Read up on Thomas Jefferson and the Moors. The Moors were Muslim pirates in the name of Allah, that believed anybody who is non-muslim were theirs for the taking. They captured and sold slaves, pirated ships of all nations, raped and pillaged. Well Jefferson paid them off, yeah, we were extorted and Thomas Jefferson paid the Moors their ransom not to attack our ships. Jefferson read the koran and knew where the moors were coming from spiritually and knew they were nuts. The bribe which was a huge mistake for the Moors in taking was for Jefferson to buy time to build an army to defeat them. Jeffrson knew that our newly founded economy could not afford a war with the Moors and had a real chance of losing without preparation. As time past we drove them out. History repeats itself. Islam is not going to make the same mistake, and they are not going away. They are a belief that has no concept of Jesus Christ. There is no forgive and forget,there is only annihilate your enemy.

I think there may some truth to the idea that our treatment of prisoners at Gitmo may me a recruiting tool for terrorists. I think the add goes like this: Come join us, you can blow up buildings and decapatate people with dull rusty knives on the web and guess what if they catch you, you get go to a tropical paradise and if you are realy bad they will poor water on your face and make you hold your breath for 20 to 40 seconds while a doctor watchs to make sure your will not be hurt. And get this, they got entire organizations dedicated to getting you free and if you are lucky you can sue and get rich. Come join now!

fender - I don't know what the heck your comment has to do with anything, but before you condemn only Muslim nations for the kinds of behaviors you named - "They captured and sold slaves, pirated ships of all nations, raped and pillaged" - you might want to look at the history of of invasions, wars and atrocities committed by the so-called Christian nations. The Crusades, the Inquisition, European nations taking turns dividing up the rest of the world to form their own empires - first Spain and Portugal, then Great Britain. And let's not forget that wonderful non-Muslim, Mr. A. Hitler. Nor should we forget our own country's history with slavery, in which, by the way Thomas Jefferson was an enthusiastic participant.

Now let's get back to the topic under discussion . . .

Jim, I'd have to agree with Rick in BH, Cheney was a draft dodger. It's hard to swallow anything he might have to say conserning the military, a snide remark might read... it probably didn't pay enough.

But the real point I wanted to make was this... the "War on Terror" has never stopped, it needs to. We have spent trillions of dollars trying to feel safe by hireing someone else in military uniform to make us feel safe when in essence, it is up to each and every one of us to assist in providing our own safety. Fact is, we are never going to be "safe". All we really do is put ourselves in a box with more rules and regulations, less freedom, more taxes and less productive businesses. It's already been proven, it takes a hole bunch more money to defend ourselves and our "interests" all over the world in some sort of empiracal mannor, as opposed to doing business and letting these guys be taken care of by their own governments. And look what we've got for it... debt, not much more. We have stretched ourselves too thin and now the State of the Union is in shambles. At this point, it seems purposeful.

Break Gitmo up, if needs be but do not bring these guys to our shores, they do not belong here. Send them back to their own countries with agreements from their governments as to their detention or lack thereof. I'm sure their governments do more than waterboard. Let them answer to their own people, they certainly got there own people killed. I do not want to be responsible for the damage these guys might instigate in our prisions, nor do I want to support them. I can't even turn on my lights anymore, let alone support them with three squares and a cot.

Tell that to the thousands of people who lost loved ones on 9/11. If they killed somoene in your family see how quickly you would say that.

I lost several good friends on 9/11, but I don't support torture.

Torture was used to extract a false confession from al-Libi, which Cheney used to justify the illegal and foolish invasion of Iraq. Those who have lost loved ones in that war thank you for your support of torture.

Bobalu, If terrorists kill me or me family, it would be a personal tragedy. It would not, however, destroy this country. 9-11 did not destroy this country. While we mourn and are sad for the senseless loss of life, what Bush and Cheney did in reaction has nearly destroyed the very things that make us Americans. They took away Constitutional rights and broke laws. Stop being ruled by the fear that the right wing is feeding you. THAT IS un-American. Nothing ever justifies torture.

Being the first vice president who had also served as secretary of defense, naturally my duties tended toward national security.

Bobalu, actually, had Cheney's eye been on the ball, he might have more carefully considered Sec. Albright's repeated warnings as to the seriousness of threat(s) posed by Al-Qaeda and the actionable intelligence reports that he was complicit in ignoring, which immediately proceeded 9/11.

In any case, 9/11 happened on his and the "war president's" watch, and neither has any credibility with the American public on the issues of safety and security in this country...

Bobalu - Roughly 15,000 people died between 9/11 and subsequent wars. 36,000 people die EACH year from the FLU!!!! Are those lives any less important? What about people that die from cancer, heart disease, drunk drivers, murders, etc.,etc. All death is tragic but we can't lose who we are because of it.

And enough with this crap that any administration can keep us safe. We are mortals, hence we are never safe.

Nothing justifies torture?

Apparently someone forgot to forward that memo to Al Qaeda operatives.

Desert girl, are you suggesting that the US hold itself to the standards of al-Qaeda? If so, Cheney already did just that.

: Pretty weak argument. I also lost people in the WTC and two friends on flight 93 and yet I still oppose torture. Torture will not bring these people back, and it is a poor excuse for revenge. I am sorry for all of our losses, but I would be willing to lose even more loved ones (including myself) to protect what America stands for, and sir/mam it is not what you are talking about. All I hear from you is me, me, me and me. Why not think about the country you supposedly love first?

Also everybody forgets that it was Cheney during the Bush Sr Admin that stated only a fool would go into Iraq. Well what the fu#$ happened Cheney? I guess you became the fool!!!

Tell that to the thousands of people who lost loved ones on 9/11. If they killed somoene in your family see how quickly you would say that.

Bobalu M, I lost two family members & my BFF at the Twin Towers on 9/11 & still I will tell you, Nothing Justifies Toture.

Unless someone has one of my daughters I'll prosonally do everything in my power to protect and free.

If anyone wants the Gitmo people take them into your home clothe and feed them. Be sure to sleep well tonight. It is funny people demand that a sex offender register and it be posted all over the web. But they want to protect the terrorist. Please explain that one to me. Terrorist want to kill American citizens for no other reason then we are American. And people want to protect them? No they are not under our civil laws. As far as I can tell we did not break the geneva convention or Military rules of engagment or rules governing POW's. But for an American to uphold such charges is despicable. But since the charges are made and things re brought into light that never should have been. Let's go for it. Pelosi too. Congress and everybody. Hang them all. Where was Obama doing something when he was a senator? Where were the cries then? No cheney told what wa what in a time that total chaos broke out. A remarkable job at the moment and I was so proud of my country. It shames my country that we accuse our own now. I am 100% anti terrorist. To me terrorism is evil and a threat to this country. SO sit and do nothing now. But whne something like 9/11 happens again do not cry about about it. Do not be angered by it. Just accept it and punish whoever the leader of this country is at the time. Kiss the terrorist and say thank you for exposing how bad the US is. Read these post real close and you will se what I am speaking of. As for me I will protect my land against all invaders by whatever means necessary. And yes the constitution and our laws gives me that right. But I am sure there are those who would like those rights stripped away as well. ANs every man in US history that faught for our freedoms would have died in vain. Folks it sickens me to thinkt aht Americans forget and care less for the freedoms we enjoy. The freedoms that allow us to write such hateful things about our leaders and country. Obama needs to show some back bone. Some pride in this country and it's achievments. And quit trying to change everything. Someone will need to step up if an attack happens in the near future. And from his actions he is not prepaired for such a thing. So kiss a terrorist and make them happy if you wish.

Dear "Concerned":

Regarding breaking Geneva and other rules of war, the CAT, and US law, the ICRC, US Supreme Court, and quite a few JAG officers would disagree with you.

I read this horse crap spew from lib's about revenge..........they did it to protect you and me and to uncover the LA attempt of an evident attack......and don't worry......the information on the CIA MEMOS will be coming out soon.......and how many Americans were saved because of only THREE PEOPLE WATERBORDED............and do you think our CIA did it out of revenge and fun???????????They did it to prevent further ATTACKS!!!!!!!!!!!!WTF is wrong with the LEFT WACK JOBS............."O" DUMBOS own head OF CIA told him it worked and unfoiled further attacks........why do you think he was going to release the pictures but not the information on the success of the torture methods the coward.......and further........I need a definition of torture please.......a.......true.........definition........with........exact......details........please.........and I want to know how many countries do not conduct torture methods also while your at it lib's............

Actually revolution time, it looks to me like it's you that needs to go back to school. Learn how to write and spell. There are also things called paragraphs. That goes for Concerned75 also.

You show your intelligence when using names like LEFT WACK JOBS and "O" DUMBO. And what the hell does " unfoiled further attacks" mean?

Um, who's the idiot?

I think "unfoiled further attacks" means that AFTER nine or so months on the job, and of course, AFTER 9/11, only then did the clock start ticking as to how safe & secure the Repubs kept us all.

This from a Nat'l Guard jet jockey and a 5-time draft dodger both of whom were guilty of avoiding the Vietnam conflict at any cost...

still playing the blame card I see........and the we "won" we "won"............its not a game.........and to destroy national security of our nation over "POLITICAL GAINS KILLS ALL OF US JACK ASSES"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WE ARE AT WAR WITH THE TERRORIST "REMEMBER"!!!!!!!!!they attacked us many times before JR. BUSH WAS EVER PRESIDENT!!!!they hate us because we are allied with "ISRAEL".......and they hate our way of life.....IDIOTS!!!!!!!!!!!!you need to get educated in our past history......I don't see "IRAN,N.Korea,and AL QUE DA more our friends after this "IDIOT" apologized for our COUNTRIES SO CALLED ARROGANCE.......we are no safer now than before BUSH or after BUSH........

RT, I have a pair of pom-poms. They may assist in you making your point.

"Dear "Concerned":

Regarding breaking Geneva and other rules of war, the CAT, and US law, the ICRC, US Supreme Court, and quite a few JAG officers would disagree with you."

To make such a general statement is a bit presumptuous. This would assume guilt before proving innocence. Could have swore we were innocent till proven guilty. So for the Supreme court to rule that we have broke the laws of this country is a perversion of the law itself. For People of Jag to make such statements is a perversion of law itself. So fo those people to make such statements is questionable at the least. Sure a lot of opinions are floating around. But then we had an actual accusation made and it is being white washed. Congress wants that to just disappear. It is a distraction. No it is an issue. An issue that should have never went public. Sorry but I defend this country and it's actions. I say with no reservations we have done it right. It is funny but all the hype over how this is wrong no one has stated how it should have been handled with no uncertainty. It seems the best action with all the information available was taken. Now if all of the hype is true and we are such a bad people. The close Gitmo now and release the detainees immediately. Pay them a large amount of money. But to move them to a prison here is just a change of geography and doesn't change anything. We do not need a politically charged stance when it comes to the well being and security of this country. Sometimes unpopular decisions must be made and executed. One thing for sure. If it was as simple as Obama thought it would have happened. Maybe now he sees the whole problem that faced Bush. But Obama has the luxury having time to think a bit more. Bush had no time and had to act quick. I was proud of this country and it's quick response and continued response to terrorism after 9/11. And none of these loose non credible accusations and opinions will change that.

torreseggs....Cheney knows exactly what he's doing. He's doing the control freak routine he's always done. Anyone who thinks there wasn't big bucks in Bush's declared "War on Terror" is a fool. And, guess who profitted most from a war that is mostly pschological and philosophical than it is real The bottom line is Cheney knows someone from his party with the most prestigious position in the Bush administration has to keep their military cronies busy shoveling more taxpayer dollars at their war. Cheney lives in Wyoming. I doubt there a terrorist walking who knows where that it much less would attack it.

The newspapers and media in my area are full of news about 4 convicts who were planning to bomb an airfield in Newburgh NY and Jewish temples in New York City. They planned to use a shoulder fired missile to shoot down a plane. The FBI was all over it for months, even to putting the kaboosh to that missile. Now...Question for all of the neocon big mouths with little brains out there...If the FBI was all over this one for months, how come not a single person in the government put 2 and 2 together to stop 9/11? Something is beginning to smell all too fishy.

I agree. I thought the same thing. The questions are not framed well.

The possible answers on this site are rarely clear or well thought out.

True. I am in the very small minority that voted "I don't know". On a moral level, I don't like the idea of using torture. On a pragmatic level, I know that we live in a dangerous world and that our nation continues to face threats (both internal and external). I also know that "being nice" to everyone is not an effective national security policy.

Desertgirl I voted the same way for the same reasons.

We weren't attacked before 9/11. Did we torture before ? no.

Our allies were attacked after 9/11. Did we torture ? yes.

The Bush admin ceased torturing apparently in 2006. Have we been attacked ? no

There is no evidence that torture reduces attacks. There is plenty of evidence it increases it.

We were attacked before 9/11. Kenya embassy, USS Cole, Twin towers in 93. Where were you at? So yes, we were attacked.

Yes, we did use torture. Look up Clinton's use of "rendition". Sent people to Egypt to have them "renditioned". What do you think that was???

Our allies were also attacked before that. Israel and others. India.

How many times were attacks stopped with the use of water bording? Obama won't release that. He should. We used water bording up to then. Were we attacked? No. See, your logic is faulty.

Not there isn't. We were attacked on 9/11 before Bush used any techniques. We were attacked in 93 before Clinton used "rendition" and sent them to Egypt to get information. Look it up. Plenty of times we were attacked. Until we went to Iraq and Afganistan. Various countries in embassy bombings, ours and our allies, also here at home.

Show the evidence that water bording increases attacks. You can't show the evidence that it decreases attacks because Obama doesn't release the information gathered using it and the attacks stopped. Why not?

Waterboarding (under a doctor's supervision, no less, is NOT torture)and in no way comes even close to the techniques of torture other barbaric countries use to extract national security information during WAR.

What slays me about Left-liberal minded people is that they call Waterboarding under supervision ...torture

But call murdering innocent babies...pro-choice.. instead of calling abortion what it is...murder.

These mongrel detainees are NOT American citizens, and have no right to our Constitutional laws or to be represented in American courts with due process.

Unborn babies of American mothers should have more rights then Islamic fanatics who want to do nothing but annihilate Americans.

Oddly, it was called torture when the Chinese did it to our servicemen during the Vietnam War.

Bridget M

I'm sure after 20 seconds of water boarding you would agree it's torture and would declare yourself a Terrorist and start divulging plans that your mother or brother are hatching to attack the US. The doctors is there only to make sure your just about dead before they stop, they don't want to leave anything on the table.

As regards the babies yes it is murder but the last thing the world needs is more unwanted human babies, 6 billion +, we're set on the humans.

RLS

We've been doing a lot more than waterboarding, try reading this official JAG report :

w w w . cnn . com/video/#/video/politics/2009/05/19/am.intv.bradley.yvonne.cnn

This includes rendition and genital mutilation. The man was released as innocent some months later.

The Viet Cong tortured in many ways...besides waterboarding without a doctor present...broken arms, legs, backs plus deplorable techniques the USA has never used. You cant even compare this..and the GITMO waterboarding was only used on 3 mongrels...who did devulge valuable information that our country needed at that time while under strict medical supervision. I witnessed 9-11 in NYC, I lost my brother & nephew in that catastrophy, among many friends & good people, thousands more today suffer the effects of that day...now THATS TORTURE! We as a nation did not want that to continue, so if water dripping on this mad mans head stopped more slaughter...so be it...

These detainees are given 3 square meals a day, rights to read the Koran & prayer time. I never remember Bibles given to our soldiers in Hanoi...the difference is too immense to try to compare the Hanoi Hilton to GITMO...

Our soldiers were not savages either...like people plotting to drive planes into buildings for no absolutely no reason but to kill innocent people. There is no comparison here.

Unwanted babies need to be stopped before they are conceived not while they grow...unwanted or not they are living and anything to stop that growth is murder...not pro choice...and yet most liberals never scream torture for partial or late term abortions...
This is a play on words....just like waterboarding under medical supervision is considered torture..

I do not believe this JAG report because there is no such site.
Rendition is nothing more than handing over prisoners, and there was no genital mutilation...they all pee in the same urinal.

This is all propaganda leaked by more fanatical Islamists ..and "misinformed" (I believed Ms Pelosi word) left liberal kill Bush sites.....
Our military are not the enemy...if we spent more time dissecting terrorism, then our military in GITMO, Obama would be more of a president.. who wants to secure our nation

Yes, I guess it is a play on words: waterboarding under medical supervision is considered medically-supervised torture. Play with those words!

"Pro-choice" means just what it says: the right of each woman to choose for herself whether to terminate a pregnancy. It does not mean that the pregnancy will be terminated. Frankly, it is none of your business what any other woman does with her body, just as it is not our business what you do with yours.

Just to clear up your OBVIOUS confusion.

So, Bridget, does it just make you feel better that SOMEONE is feeling pain, to make up for your brother and nephew? That kind of thinking was what got us into Iraq (Someone has to pay!!!) when Iraq had nothing to do with 911....

ErinNJ:

NO human, woman or otherwise, has the right to determine whether someone lives or dies. "Pro-Choice" is "Pro-Homicide"..period. Terminating a pregnancy is a euphamism for MURDER! By your logic, you could decide to kill any one of your children at any time, regardless of their age. After all, they came from your body....

LoveMyCountry....We have a younger generation of "Know it Alls" like Bridget and Laura who haven't lived long enough to achieve the correct volume of wisdom or common sense. Laura pronounces "torture" and to her its a visit to the Carvel store. Bridget likewise. Until we do it to either of them. You can't make sense to irrational people like these.

They value their Blackberries, their incessant texting and cell phone calls, not human life. Unless it's their own. Narcissism is a true characterstic of most right wingers. Gross narcissism that can't related the idea that any form of civilized behavior that compromises integrity and common decency leads to destruction of civilization.

Yeah we could go back to bubba clinton who sent our military everywhere and demanded support when he was facing tough scrutiny and criticism at home.

Jim -- my thoughts entirely. The fact that Cheney is the one defending everything makes me wonder just who was calling the shots all those years.

"tough scrutiny and criticism at home"...

Do you mean the criticism Clinton got from Republicans like Cheney when he bombed a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan in an attempt to kill Bin Laden, or when he tried to change international financial rules so as to cut off the flow of money to al-Qaeda? Is that the tough criticism you mean?

Lets see, hmmm... Dick Cheney is a citizen of the US. If you like it or not, he has first amendment rights just like you do. And the economy, hmmmmm..... The demorats took control of the house and Senate in 2006, so the recession or depression whatever you want to call it was caused by these same people you seem to worship. In other words for the slow ones, it was caused by liberal demorats. You will not be able to change the true history just by flapping your gums.

Laura-261470 - or is Cheney still calling the shots? Or in some type of powerful underground we don't know about that still has some influence in DC. Why do you think the Dems voted against funding the other day? Call me paranoid, but it makes me paranoid!

Sure, he can say whatever he wants.

BTW, Congress cannot pass any laws if the president vetos them, so the Dems having the House and Senate during the last two years of Bush's term doesn't mean much. Also, I think the roots of the recession are far older than that -- greed and excess use of credit have been common in our population for years.

I hadn't thought of that. Of course Bush was the mouthpiece for Cheney, and now Cheney has to finally speak for himself. Crawled out from under that rock and now he speaks like a man praying for a terrorist attack...

birdman:

And the economy, hmmmmm..... The demorats took control of the house and Senate in 2006, so the recession or depression whatever you want to call it was caused by these same people you seem to worship.

Please give me an example of a single economic policy implemented after January 2007 that effectuated the economic meltdown.

I blame both republicans and democrats for the implementation of Gramm Leach Bliley in 1999 (by the way, it was a republican congress at the time). But if you believe that the congress sworn in in January 2007 implemented policies that caused the massive losses throughout the banking industry that took place in the third quarter, I would just like an example of a single policy put in place that turned everything around in that six- to nine-month time period.

Ok, Birdman, I'm sorry, but that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Clearly, you don't understand economics. To blame the economic recession on a political party or a political ideology (i.e. liberal) is ridiculous. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of catalysts for a recession, none of which is a political party (whether Republican or Democrat). An economy has highs and lows, with it's peaks, come recessions. Yes, this recession is particularly brutal, but no one person or thing can take the blame. There are millions, even billions of players in an economy, it's highly complex, so there's no "breaking it" or "fixing it". It just is. So you can blame this recession on "liberal democrats" but there is no avoiding recession. It's what economies do. And it's not just the U.S. economy that is suffering great recession, it's the world economy as a whole, and as much we might like to think that our political parties and Congress has great power, their power isn't great enough to tank a world economy into recession.

Actually, I think it was birdman who caused the entire economic meltdown.

To Jim Casey--------You have got to be kidding. Worse than the terrorists?? People have to take responsibility for over-extending themselves, and the dems and republicans knew the housing market was unstable with freddie mac and fannie mae. They lied , totally, SELF-INTEREST.

Self interest has become the American way. And blame, like the Obama administration does, and his followers do. Bush is not responsible for the above.

And as far as "waterboarding goes", when some freak takes another persons life, wether it be beheading or detonating a bomb, well I hope most people would agree with me that that person gave up their freedom. They do not deserve to live.

Signed--- a democrat

Okay Diedre, see if you can guess who was running the show when the following occurred:

Chronology to a Financial Disaster – “The Perfect Storm”

1933 – Glass Steagall Act is passed to prevent banks and investment houses from acting as one entity.
1970 – HUD creates the first transaction using a mortgage-backed security sold by Ginnie Mae.
1977 – Community Reinvestment Act is passed to help make loans to less-qualified borrowers.
1985 – Asset securitization is applied to auto loans.
1986 – The first securitization of credit cards is sold.
1987 – Wall Street and insurance companies employ PhDs in mathematics to design new tools.
1988 – Citigroup invents the Structured Investment Vehicle (SIV)
1994 – Congress further empowers the CRA to increase homeownership.
1997 – Congress allows both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to lower reserves from 12% to 2.5%.
1998 – AIG does its first credit default swap
1999 – Gram-Leach-Bliley Act re-merges banks and investment houses back into a single entity.
2002 – Federal Reserve lowers interest rates as the economy continues to feel the effects of 9/11.
2002 – Credit rating companies begin their initial rating of SIVs, many with AAA ratings.
2002 – Audits of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac show mismanagement and accounting irregularities.
2003 – Two independent reports show that both Fannie and Freddie have no positive impact on housing.
2003 – Congress reduces future funding of both Fannie and Freddie.
2003 – Wall Street increases its participation in mortgage-backed securities.
2004 – The Fed, mistakenly thinking economy is weak, pumps in excess liquidity and keeps rates low.
2004 - Regulators allow investment bankers to decrease reserve requirements from 8.5% to 2.5%.
2004 – Analysis of Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) shows sub-primes are the dominating debt.
2004 – Fannie and Freddie, trying to be viable again, begin purchasing these CDOs from Wall Street.
2005 – Fannie and Freddie are considered the “less affordable lenders,” and buy $1 trillion of CDOs.

2005 – Charge-off rates are below long term averages and lenders loosen credit standards.

2005 – Option-ARMs began making up 19.5% of the total loan volume.

2006 – Option-ARMs grow to 28.7% of the total loan volume, and sub-prime begins to show late-pays.

2006 – CDOs grow to $557 billion, but delinquencies on sub-prime loans begin to rise rapidly.

2006 – Credit rating agencies begin to make major downgrades on SIVs, affecting all credit markets.

2006 – The SEC keeps market to market rule in place, beginning the destruction of equities.

2007 – By May, sub-prime loans are dead and lending tightens.
2007 – In early August, there is a major call on credit default swaps against CDOs.
2007 – By the end of August, the securitization market is dead and the funding market is frozen.
2007 – SEC abolishes the uptick rule and drives the stake of death through financially sound institutions.

You're going to find out. Obviously, you're a naive B.O. puppet. Review your puppetmaster's record so far and think about where the country is heading.

Laugh of the Day....Bush making a speech saying he was enjoying his freedom from responsibility as president. What responsibility? Then, you hear the rest of his speech and it's less than enlightening....all of which proves what we all knew...Cheney was putting words in Bush's mouth. Now that Cheney is mouthing off on his own, that dummy he puppeted for 8 years has nothing to say beyond small talk. Gee...Shocker ...Right?

News flash....................Cheney moves up in poll.................."O" Dumbo does not have any clear plan but to campaign for the next election..............saying is one thing..........a solution is another.....LMAO..........

At least Bush had Cheney, Obama has a teleprompter that tells him what to say, have you ever heard him talk off the cuff? Joe the plumber has and it wasn't pretty.

Ridiculous comment. You can blame Clinton's Administration for the lack of focusing on this issue and not blame a President who was not even a year into office.

The years spent planning and training for the 9/11 attacks were carried out under clinton, a lot of it here in this country. When he was vulnerable, the Pakistani's wanted to have bin laden arrested but clinton declined. He couldn't get a photo op or a poll boost at the time so it was inconvenient. It was far easier to lob missiles at medical and baby food factories.

Your "facts" are straight out of Faux?news? propaganda. Have you forgotten the warnings that Clinton passed on to Bush WHICH WERE IGNORED?

The Clinton admin warned the Bush admin in January 2001 and Bush did nothing.

The admin was warned again in August 2001 and W went on vacation.

Clinton's counter terrorism budget increased throughout his two terms as President, but Bush and Ashcroft actually cut the budget pre-September 11.

By the same logic who was the president when the first Stimulus plan went thru? Who were in the majority in Congress for 2 years when the economy collapsed?

well if Clinton would have had the cojones to do something before then it wouldn't be an issue... why are liberals such pansies? let em walk all over us why don't you? Sit down and talk with terrorists... they don't talk, they chop off our heads...

The economy collapsed several times between 2001 and 2007.

And to answere your questions:

Bush was Pres when the bailout went through, and the Dems had a slim majority in both houses of Congress then

We were attacked 4 times on Clinton's watch and He did nothing,Thats what was stolen from the National Archives by Sandy Berger,and Now the Archives have lost a hard drive of clinton era records. Nothing fishy there?

Listen to the idiocy of Bobalu:

Ridiculous comment. You can blame Clinton's Administration for the lack of focusing on this issue and not blame a President who was not even a year into office.

What a crock from a man who, despite there having been no attacks in THIS administration, blames this President for making him less safe, despite the fact that George W. Bush was President when we lost thousands on 9/11. If you want to call something a ridiculous comment, Bobalu, perhaps you should just wait until you next utter anything.

Stormer, dude -- get off the crack!

Ridiculous comment. You can blame Clinton's Administration for the lack of focusing on this issue and not blame a President who was not even a year into office.

: So we cannot blame Bush because he had not been in office for a year yet you bash Obama who has not even been in office for six months. I call that hypocrisy at its finest! Keep watching Faux News, it really is dumbing you down!!!!

Yes lets go over Cheney's "keeping us safe" track history.

1. Special briefing from Clinton warning that there are alerts about possible AQ attack, briefings held Jan 2001

2. Repeated daily briefings from FBI and CIA for several months indicating a) AQ wants to make a dramatic attack on US soil b) AQ agents are in the US c) AQ wants to attack with planes d) Suspicious Saudis are training at numerous flying schools in the US and receiving large sums from Saudi Arabia via Western Union

3. Cheney-Bush made no changes to Airport security, made no sweeps of flight training schools, did nothing to make such an attack more difficult.

Subsequently Cheney-Bush mislead us into a war that will eventually claim over 5,000 US service men and women and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians caught in the crossfire / bombings.

Subsequently they will order our troops to torture, the very months that they are patting themselves on the back for closing Saddam's torture chambers.

Really, these guys should be on trial.

Axe, thank you!

Stormer F, Clinton didn't "do nothing," he bombed Afghanistan, which upset a lot of people.

Axe1000, thank you for laying it out so clearly. I'm sick of Cheney-Bush claiming that their administration kept us safe for 8 years after 9/11 when, in fact, they are the ones who blatantly failed to protect our country. They were provided with ample intelligence (info) to guard against the 9/11 attacks, but lacked the intelligence (brains) to read and/or listen to the numerous briefings that were handed to them - accurate, reliable, critical intelligence acquired without a single incident of torture. All they had to do was read! They sat back and allowed the attacks, then had the unbelievable nerve to take credit for keeping our country safe by violating the rule of law, disregarding the very constitution they're always wrapping themselves in, and shredding our nation's integrity.

And all the while you naive people are still blaming Bush for everything, illegals and terrorists are swarming across the southern border. Bush did nothing about it and neither is B.O. - B.O. wants to broaden his voting base so he can be emperor so he won't do anything either. Say goodbye to your country.

Well why didn't "CLINTON" eliminate the danger when he had the chance if he was so concerned with it to pass it off to "BUSH"...............CLINTON NEVER FINISHED THE JOB!!!!!!!!!!!!so 9/11 happened and only then did "GOVERNMENT take the terrorist seriously.........

Instead of calling names and comparing Cheney to the Nazis (Hitler-Fascist), Pinochet (Dictator), Milosivich (someone who ordered genocide), your comments are totally irrelevant. Cheney has just as much a right to speak out on these issues as Obama.

Hobbes, Cheney also has the "right" to go to jail for war crimes - Supermax, 20 to life.

Hobbes, there's a slight difference between freedom of speech and conspiracy to torture. One is a crime under USC 2340. Can you guess which?

Hobbes, another little tidbit about USC 2340 is that the death penalty applies if torture resulted in death. Unfortunately, the death penalty only applies to the torturer himself - not to the conspirators who formulated the policy, twisted the law, and ordered the torture. The most those people can get is life, even though they were responsible for the torture of far more people than any individual torturer was. And, according to the DoD, at a minimum 26 people have died from torture by the US.

So who is more culpable of war crimes and crimes against humanity: a German soldier who escorted Jews to the gas chamber, or Hermann Göring?

I'd suggest that since this was a top-down decision by the Bush administration, we should start the inquiries there -- at the top. But it needs to start soon before a foreign entity decides they should be the ones to mop-up after our mess.

Let's start with Pelosi!!!

Max - I agree. Let's start with the four people who may or may not have been informed that the administration was planning to commit crimes against humanity and war crimes, but were prohibited by law from speaking about it...even to their own staff members. That's 2 Republicans and 2 Democrats. We should ask why they allowed Bush to illegally use the "gang of 4 (or 8) rules", rather than inform the full intelligence committees. The gang of 4 rules were meant solely to protect emergency covert action, but once that covert action had started, the full committees were to be informed. Interrogation and torture do not meet that definition, so such matters SHOULD have been, by law, briefed to the full committees.

Next we should ask why, if they had objections, they didn't use the "speech and debate" clause of the Constitution to discuss such matters on the floor of Congress, which could have been done in closed session if they wanted. Congress has absolute immunity to discuss any topic relevant to legislation or oversight duties - even classified matters.

Finally we should ask Pelosi why she took impeachment off the table, and blocked those like Wexler and Kucinich who had brought articles of impeachment - even though she was fully aware of impeachable offenses, war crimes, and felonies committed by the Executive.

However, let's not take our eye off the ball: the people who authorized and ordered torture, those who actually committed torture, and the lawyers who conspired to twist the law in order to allow it.

Good post... I remember the letter I sent to Pelosi after she took impeachment off the table -- she lost my vote.

JJ117...Cheney may end up just that. There are several European countries that are in a lather over what he and Bush did. It will take the might and charm of our new president to call off the dogs after Bush and Cheney's asses.

Do you actually think that the terrorist would drop their arms, hold your hand, and sing Michael Row Your Boat Ashore with you? You poor misguided fool!

Ah but Brad, we are not the terrorists see ? What kind of banana republik do you want to live in ?

Who can live with the logic that says torture is illegal, but that the president, in times of national emergency always has the option of breaking that law to keep us safe, and be held accountable for that decision? At least at that point, the president is required to produce the justification for the decision instead of simply exerting some phantom executive power.

Yeah, I think it would have been almost understandable if they had presented the issue to the American people first, instead of hiding everything under cover of secrecy. And they wonder why people are angry now!

AHHHHHHHHHH...Im sure if the last "Administration didn't do what they had to do to break up further attacks the "LIB's would have still moved to dismember them...............Called a double standard......your damned if you do and tamed if you don't.........TYPICAL POLITICAL HORSE @!$%#!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheney can't speak without spewing lies, obfuscation, detritus. He's certainly proven that...

Ok well if you think that Obama can't debate without notes, then you certainly shouldn't think that Bush could do it either; the man who barely READ from the prompter! But I have seen Obama speak personally and during the question and answer session, he got asked some pretty tough questions (a couple of them by yours truly), and I would say he can think of his feet and debate pretty well.

Let's see...

Using a teleprompter (like every other politician) = legal

Lying the American public into a senseless and costly war, outing a CIA agent, letting Osama Bin Laden slip through your fingers, violating the Geneva Conventions, wiretapping broad swaths of the American domestic communication networks sans any warrants, war profiteering with your former company in no-bid contracts, etc. = probably illegal

AD117- The right wing is salivating for Obama to walk right into their hands and slip up. They are so used to a puppet and puppet master like Cheney doing all the work, they can't imagine that any president can actually be highly intelligent and actually understand the importance of American integrity. Without some sense of moral high ground, Americans buy into terrorist behavior. There are right wingers on this thread who can't conceive of moral high ground because they mostly work from sewer pits from which their best assets: fear, greed, deception, lies and unqualified cronyism spews forth.

Cheney has just as much a right to speak up now on issues as Obama or yourself.

But why wait until now. Hell he never said anything when he was in office.

Verno...Cheney never spoke up in office unless it served his dastardly purposes. Otherwise, he kept it all under tight wraps for fear that divulging his actions would get him impeached.

We "protect" our freedom by being FREE. Not by cowardace, which is what the right wing served up for the past 8 years. AlQuaida cannot defeat us, only we, ourselves ,can give up our principles and our honor. That is what will defeat us. The right does not understand what being American is all about.

Cheney for President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

stop using 9/11 as an excuse for breaking the law. Blinded by 9/11.

How does torturing innocent people, or torturing to extract false confessions "protect our freedom"? All that does is create more enemies, lose the assistance of our friends, and get bad intelligence. The US is responsible for the torture of Maher Arar, Murat Kurnaz, and Binyam Mohammed - people who are factually innocent. Binyam Mohammed had his penis repeatedly sliced with a razor, in our name. John Yoo claims that it's legal for the President to crush the testicles of innocent children if it causes their father to "confess".

A false confession extracted from al-Libi helped Cheney make the case for war in Iraq. Thousands of Americans, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are now dead due to that falsehood.

Many countries - Canada, the UK, and most EU countries - will no longer turn over terrorism suspects to the US, or share any intelligence regarding suspects the US has in custody BECAUSE of the fact that we torture. Those countries are prohibited under their own laws and international treaty from cooperating with countries that torture. In fact, Canada will no longer extradite anyone to the US. The US is now in the proud company of countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and China. Do you feel safer now?

How do you know the detainees are innocent? Some of these countries refuse to accept their own citizens when some of these detainess are released. Why is that? NY Time just released a report saying that about 14% of the detainees released went right back to being a terrorist. I hope you feel safer now.

How do I know some are innocent? Because they were proven to be innocent by a court of law. The people I cited are factually innocent, but if you only watch Fox you wouldn't know anything about them.

If you knew anything about Guantanamo, you'd know that many prisoners were sold to the US for a bounty. You'd also know that the case files on the Guantanamo prisoners are a mess, or non-existent. And you'd know that JAG officers involved with prosecuting the cases have said that most of the prisoners shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Regarding the 14% recidivism rate, if you read the actual NY Times article, you'd see that the claim was "terrorism or militant activities". What are "militant activities"? Is it protesting US torture and policies? Is it making a video denouncing the US? We know in at least one case that's exactly what it is - the US claimed "terrorism" by an ex-detainee because he made a video critical of US torture. The percentages are also highly suspect - the US has made various claims over the years, and never offered any evidence. Further, if I were innocent and had been held without charge and tortured & abused for 7 years, I'd hold a grudge. The first thing I'd want is vengeance.

Hobbes,

According to the DoD, the vast majority of detainees were suspected of comitting NO crime. Of course they are just another liberal media outlet, right?

I don't know whether any of them are innocent, but I certainly don't know that all of them are guilty. I haven't seen proof of the guilt either.

GeraldC....Remember...You opened this door. How free is a society that must live under the oppression of constant government vigilance over our private lives? How free is a society that can so very easily be labeled a "terrorist" at the behest of those who would define that to mean anyone, American or not, who falls short of their definition? How free is any society that is bankrupted by constant war that makes only 1% of the population richer? How free is any society that can never relax, enjoy their country and their government so long as fear is the operative mechanism by which their government controls them?

Although your comment sounds nice, how many lawyers has this country produced? How many times have you seen our laws bent, broken or overlooked by juries based on legal loopholes or technicalities? Just like Obama says, it's not always black or white. One person sees what happened at gmo as torture, yet another can see it as a perfectly legal approach based on the situation. If two intelligent and educated people can have contrary perspectives on an issue, it's usually not as clear cut as some would like to think...

Smyth...sometimes a person may have a perspective that is out in la-la land. Just having a contrary perspective doesn't mean it's legit.

Azzix....Ben was the "President" of Pennslyvania before we had Governors.

How many times have you seen our laws bent, broken or overlooked by juries based on legal loopholes or technicalities?

Are you claiming that two wrongs make right? Laws as applied by humans will never be perfect, as nothing humans will ever do is perfect. That does not mean we throw it all away because we cannot achieve perfection.

One person sees what happened at gmo as torture, yet another can see it as a perfectly legal approach based on the situation. If two intelligent and educated people can have contrary perspectives on an issue, it's usually not as clear cut as some would like to think...

Actually, it's very clear. We have a law that defines what torture is:

Section 2340 of the federal criminal code defines it as a government act “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering” (an exception is made for the execution of capital sentences).”

It's not about if they deserved to be tortured. There is no doubt they deserve to be slow-roasted over a fire. That's just not what America does.

Ever. Our Constitution says so very plainly.

You quote Ben Franklin, and I agree with him. The problem is BHO is giving up our liberty and safety. At least Cheney and Bush were following Ben's saying, not the libs. Try using another quote please, something that reflects how libs are giving up our security because of their misguided actions.

This was not a LEGAL approach. How anyone can look at this and say it was is unreasonable.

The problem is BHO is giving up our liberty and safety. At least Cheney and Bush were following Ben's saying, not the libs.

Exsqueeze me? BUSH implemented warrantless wiretaps. BUSH suspended Habeus Corpus. BUSH left Obama with this steaming pile of legal crap to deal with, and that's just to name a few of his little gifts to our history.

We lose more Americans in traffic accidents in ONE YEAR than every terrorist incident EVER, COMBINED. If you're worried about safety, focus on your car. I was far more afraid of my government under Bush than I was of Osama Bin Laden. Bush could have, would have disappeared me from my own home if some CIA analyst accused me. No trial, no evidence, no facing of your accuser -- all rights guaranteed Americans.

You desperately need to go read your Constitution pal, you might learn something.

All Obama has done is let the professionals advise him, and take their best advice. Torture not only doesn't work, it gets you crappy information. Oh, and it's illegal too. I'm no lib, but I care about our laws and our Constitution. Are you saying Conservatives don't? It certainly appears that way.

All Bush ever did was disregard the advice of those professionals around him. He fired JCS Chairman Shinseki for telling him he needed 350k troops to take out Iraq. Instead, he let Rumsfeld sell him "fast and light" and "shock and awe". How'd that work out?

Beautifully said, Azzix! It is that simple, whether people like it or not.

Waterboarding (under a doctor's supervision, no less, is NOT torture)and in no way comes even close to the techniques of torture other barbaric countries use to extract national security information during WAR.

What slays me about Left-liberal minded people is that they call Waterboarding under supervision ...torture

But call murdering innocent babies...pro-choice.. instead of calling abortion what it is...murder.

These mongrel detainees are NOT American citizens, and have no right to our Constitutional laws or to be represented in American courts with due process.

Unborn babies of American mothers should have more rights then Islamic fanatics who want to do nothing but annihilate Americans.

Azzix! You have nothing to fear but fear itself. The only reason you would need be concerned about the CIA scanning the airwaves for conversations directly related to terrorist planning is if you were involved in terrorist planning. Do you really think they were going to take you to Guantanemo just for having a conversation on a cell phone about information that was already public knowledge? They were looking for sleeper cellls! How can you find dormant terrorists within your own borders without tapping their means of communicating with their counterparts? You cant get a warrant to wiretap an unknown entity. Once you know who they are, then normal investigative actions like warrants would apply. I for one thought the best interestes of the country were served by this action, and since I have nothing to fear from such actions, I never felt threatened by it. You obviously can not say the same.

Bridget, the thing you miss about a physician's presence is that it indicates that torture was a real risk to the life of the prisoner - apparently this rule was instated after Abu Zubaydah almost died from waterboarding. It also reveals a war crime by physicians, and is a very clear violation of their Hippocratic oath (first, do no harm). There are now investigations of the involvement of American doctors by several human rights groups, as well as physicians groups. The doctors, psychologists and other medical personnel involved with torture should lose their licenses and be criminally charged.

Waterboarding (under a doctor's supervision, no less, is NOT torture)

That, unfortunately, is your opinion. Your opinion does not square with the legal definition of torture. Here, I'll repeat it (again)

Section 2340 of the federal criminal code defines torture as a government act “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering” (an exception is made for the execution of capital sentences).”

If you're in court, which do you think a judge might go with, your opinion or the legal definition?

and in no way comes even close to the techniques of torture other barbaric countries use to extract national security information during WAR.

Completely irrelevant. Other countries are not bound by our Constitution. We are.

What slays me about Left-liberal minded people is that they call Waterboarding under supervision ...torture

Where to you get "left liberal minded" from someone who can read a plain-english definition? If that's your logic, then the converse of that statement is that "right conservative minded" people cannot read or apply simple logic.

But call murdering innocent babies...pro-choice.. instead of calling abortion what it is...murder.

This is not a debate about abortion. Those are all over Newsvine if you wish to discuss the topic. This is a debate over torture.

These mongrel detainees are NOT American citizens, and have no right to our Constitutional laws or to be represented in American courts with due process.

You really ought to inform yourself before you go spouting your opinions in a form that stays around forever. The FACTS are that the Supreme Court has held on numerous occasions that EVERYONE, non-citizens included, are entitled to the protections of our Bill of Rights.

Unborn babies of American mothers should have more rights then Islamic fanatics who want to do nothing but annihilate Americans.

Again, abortion is another debate. I can see you feel strongly about it, since you've changed the subject of this debate twice now.

The only reason you would need be concerned about the CIA scanning the airwaves for conversations directly related to terrorist planning is if you were involved in terrorist planning. Do you really think they were going to take you to Guantanemo just for having a conversation on a cell phone about information that was already public knowledge?

Perhaps your ex-brother-in-law has a grudge against you. Perhaps a bureaucrat has a quota to fill. Maybe someone just is in a pissy mood that day and wants to stir up some mischief. Maybe someone is just plain a sociopath on the government payroll. Maybe they just want to silence their critics.

All of these abuses and more have happened in the past with other agencies. Given the gallows humor that has been revealed at the NSA and CIA, it is within the realm of possibility that is could happen there too.

This is the primary reason the Constitution guarantees us the right to face our accusers and examine the evidence against us.

They were looking for sleeper cellls! How can you find dormant terrorists within your own borders without tapping their means of communicating with their counterparts? You cant get a warrant to wiretap an unknown entity.

Ummm.... how can you even begin to tap an unknown phone, much less request a warrant for it? If they have reason to suspect an American, they can get a warrant. If not, they have Echelon.

I for one thought the best interestes of the country were served by this action, and since I have nothing to fear from such actions, I never felt threatened by it.

That's because unlike you, I know that the "nothing to hide" argument is fallacious, and an insult to the spirit of America. Just because you have done nothing wrong does not mean you have nothing to fear, given the long list of abuses above.

You obviously can not say the same.

I have an appreciation for the abuses that happen when you give any government unchecked power. You should read up on history, since you seem to not understand this. Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Our most sacred duty as American Citizens is to preserve the Union for our children. I take it very seriously. It is more important than the latest scandal or threat. Our Constitution should outlast all of them, will outlast all of them unless citizens such as you fail to understand history.

As I said earlier, we lose more Americans in auto accidents EACH YEAR than everyone all over the world has ever lost to terror. Put the threat into perspective.

Be well.

mestizO...Cheney is something else...a RICH sick old man who doesn't want to see his stock in Halliburton go south if we suddenly go ecnomical and end all of the ROI he enjoyed for 8 years. You don't seriously think he gave up all of his Halliburton interests, do you? This is Cheney, Quintessential CEO we're talking about. What money didn't provide to his ego, politics did.

Do not attempt to speak for the actual victims and survivors of 9-11. I have not heard any of them speak out in favor of torture, or any other illegal action in response to the attack.

My brother was in the WTC, but survived. He and I both lost a lot of friends on 9/11. Neither of us supports torture, and we both know that it makes America less safe.

ACORN is everywhere don't you know!! They even killed Vince Foster back in the days of the Clinton Administration because he was threatening to reveal Obama's true birth certificate. A secret cabal involving George Soros and Al Qeada were involved in an elaborate conspiracy to make Obama the president and so they had no choice but to kill Foster and make it look like a suicide! I read it in a chain mail so it must be true! (rolls eyes)

With that said I think it is a rather cheap tactic to justify things like torture on the basis of the personal feelings of the victims. Do I feel sorry for their loss? Absolutely. Do some probably wish for revenge and retribution? No doubt and I completely understand.... But such personal sentiments, no matter how strongly held, should in no way dictate foreign policy or any policy. It must be objective, based on logic and not emotional sentiments which have a tendency to distort the facts.

If someone killed my family tomorrow, I would no doubt ask for their heads on a platter but that shouldn't mean that my personal desire for venegance should become official government policy. Governing out of anger is a mistake.

Just to be clear Mark, my brother is a partner in a very large law firm - there were 600 people in his office at the WTC alone. The first plane hit just a few floors above his office. He ordered his people to continue to evacuate, even though the building manager had said on the PA system that it was safe to return. By doing that my brother helped save almost 600 lives - one older woman stopped to rest on the way down the stairs and didn't make it out.

His office was fully back up in business the following Monday, because they had a good disaster plan in effect due to the 1993 WTC bombing. But my brother was really traumatized, had to go on drugs for a while, and became extremely xenophobic ("deport them all"). But he's back to normal now. He lost many friends and neighbors on 9/11, but is smart enough to oppose torture, and to recognize the damage men like Cheney have done to this country. He's way less liberal than I, but as a lawyer he values the law. As a non-lawyer, I value our principals.

I'm glad I didn't experience what he did, but I was friends with many of the same people he knew, so even though I don't live there I still have a hole in my life.

My nephew is a Marine, served 2 tours in Iraq and is willing to return for another. He is more aware of the job being done in Iraq. Our military are introduced to waterboarding. How cushy we have it in life to be flippant with the lives lost and those who put their lives on the line for us. I'm sure every Marine, Regular Army, Navy and Air Force is thankful for information gathered that makes their job easier and more safe. So you can be uncomfortable and hide from the harsh realities of life, but understand there are those who have the real task of making our lives more safe and we should not complain as we are the beneficiaries of those who put themselves on the line for us.